Adding to the already lengthy list of reasons to be concerned about the disposal of oil industry wastewater in California, the Center for Biological Diversity says it has found dangerous levels of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene and toluene in fracking flowback.

Flowback is a fluid that floats up to the surface of fracked wells that contains clays, dissolved metal ions and total dissolved solids (such as salt) in addition to chemical additives used in the fracking process.

As such, flowback is a component of oil industry wastewater, and one of the chief reasons why the wastewater must be disposed of in a very cautious manner.

In California, where the toxic and cancer-causing chemicals were found to be present in flowback by the CBD, oil industry wastewater is not, unfortunately, disposed of in a cautious manner.

Wastewater is also sometimes stored in pits, but again, California regulators have failed to enforce proper safeguards. Clean Water Action released a report last year detailing thethreat to California's air and water from the open, unlined pits used to store much of the oil industry's toxic wastewater. According to the report, at least 432 of these pits are currently in use in California, most of them operating with an expired permit or no permit at all.

“Cancer-causing chemicals are surfacing in fracking flowback fluid just as we learn that the California oil industry is disposing of wastewater in hundreds of illegal disposal wells and open pits,” said Hollin Kretzmann, the CBD lawyer who conducted the analysis. “Gov. Brown needs to shut down all the illegal wells immediately and ban fracking to fight this devastating threat to California’s water supply.”

It wasn’t just the chemicals Kretzmann found in fracking flowback that are a cause for concern, either. Laxe enforcement of reporting rules make it hard to determine the true extent of the problem, though the CBD still found enough to raise serious questions about the threats flowback fluid poses to public health:

• High chromium-6 levels: Chromium-6 was found in fracking flowback at levels up to 2,700 times the recommended level set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

• Missing reports: At least 100 fracking flowback tests are missing from the reporting website managed by California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, in violation of state law.

• Missing benzene data: Only 329 of the 479 fracking fluid chemical tests on the state oil agency’s website measured for benzene.

*bull; Benzene common: Of those 329 chemical tests that measured for benzene, 323 detected benzene while only six did not.

• Dangerous toluene levels: Toluene, a toxin that can affect the central nervous system and harm developing fetuses, was found to exceed federal-mandated limits for drinking water 118 times.

In some cases, benzene levels in fracking flowback were over 1,500 times the level the federal government says is safe for drinking water. Both chromium-6 and benzene are known carcinogens.

California is the country’s third-largest oil producing state, with some 20% of its oil production coming from fracked wells, according to a recent study that also found that half of all new wells drilled in the past decade use fracking.

Adding to the already lengthy list of reasons to be concerned about the disposal of oil industry wastewater in California, the Center for Biological Diversity says it has found dangerous levels of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene and toluene in fracking flowback.

Flowback is a fluid that floats up to the surface of fracked wells that contains clays, dissolved metal ions and total dissolved solids (such as salt) in addition to chemical additives used in the fracking process.

As such, flowback is a component of oil industry wastewater, and one of the chief reasons why the wastewater must be disposed of in a very cautious manner.

In California, where the toxic and cancer-causing chemicals were found to be present in flowback by the CBD, oil industry wastewater is not, unfortunately, disposed of in a cautious manner.

Wastewater is also sometimes stored in pits, but again, California regulators have failed to enforce proper safeguards. Clean Water Action released a report last year detailing thethreat to California's air and water from the open, unlined pits used to store much of the oil industry's toxic wastewater. According to the report, at least 432 of these pits are currently in use in California, most of them operating with an expired permit or no permit at all.

“Cancer-causing chemicals are surfacing in fracking flowback fluid just as we learn that the California oil industry is disposing of wastewater in hundreds of illegal disposal wells and open pits,” said Hollin Kretzmann, the CBD lawyer who conducted the analysis. “Gov. Brown needs to shut down all the illegal wells immediately and ban fracking to fight this devastating threat to California’s water supply.”

It wasn’t just the chemicals Kretzmann found in fracking flowback that are a cause for concern, either. Laxe enforcement of reporting rules make it hard to determine the true extent of the problem, though the CBD still found enough to raise serious questions about the threats flowback fluid poses to public health:

• High chromium-6 levels: Chromium-6 was found in fracking flowback at levels up to 2,700 times the recommended level set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

• Missing reports: At least 100 fracking flowback tests are missing from the reporting website managed by California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, in violation of state law.

• Missing benzene data: Only 329 of the 479 fracking fluid chemical tests on the state oil agency’s website measured for benzene.

*bull; Benzene common: Of those 329 chemical tests that measured for benzene, 323 detected benzene while only six did not.

• Dangerous toluene levels: Toluene, a toxin that can affect the central nervous system and harm developing fetuses, was found to exceed federal-mandated limits for drinking water 118 times.

In some cases, benzene levels in fracking flowback were over 1,500 times the level the federal government says is safe for drinking water. Both chromium-6 and benzene are known carcinogens.

California is the country’s third-largest oil producing state, with some 20% of its oil production coming from fracked wells, according to a recent study that also found that half of all new wells drilled in the past decade use fracking.

California Rep Jeff Denham slows the review of deadly cargo to a halt.

“I just want to make sure that we are all singing the same tune that we have a very safe industry and we want to work together on improving that industry.”

Those were the words of Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on February 3rd at a hearing titled “How the Changing Energy Markets Will Affect U.S. Transportation.” He was directing this advice to Greg Saxton, chief engineer for rail tank car manufacturer Greenbrier.

Denham obviously had a bone to pick with Saxton because prior to the hearing the Modesto Bee, a newspaper in Denham’s home district, ran an editorial making a strong case that the existing tank cars used to transport crude oil are unsafe. The editorial, “Delays on safer rail cars are unacceptable,” didn’t mince words. It was clear on what should happen: “The DOT [Department of Transportation] should adopt rules for those cars then set deadlines to replace every single tank car in America. Our elected representatives should insist on it.”

In Modesto, the elected representative who should be insisting on that is Jeff Denham.

Modesto is also home to Greenbrier’s manufacturing facilities and the editorial quoted Saxton for its conclusion noting his position on the lack of new regulations. “We just need a decision. Twenty years is too long.”

This is not the tune that Chairman Denham wants everyone to be singing. In his comments to Saxton at the hearing he explained his intent.

“I’m making sure that the wrong people are not talking to the Ed boards across the country that would give a wrong perception of our current situation.”

Apparently Saxton is one of the “wrong people” to talk to editorial boards because of his insistence on adhering to the facts. Denham went on to explain what he wants the American public to hear, while of course taking a shot at the Obama administration for good measure.

Rep. Denham said:

“I want to make sure as the administration drags their feet or reorganizes or does some shuffling that there is not a misperception out there in the American public that a) that our current tank cars are not safe, that our industry does not have a safe record and, most importantly, that there is not some magic quick fast track to get all of these new tank cars online very, very quickly.”

Where would the American public get the “misperception” that current oil-by-rail tank cars aren’t safe? Perhaps from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has raised concerns repeatedly about the DOT-111 tank cars for the last 20 years.

This year, the NTSB added the issue of rail tank car safety to its Most Wanted List of items to improve transportation safety. Last year, an NTSB board member testified that using theDOT-111 rail cars to transport crude oil posed an “unacceptable public risk.”

The American public may also have noticed that a couple days after Denham’s talk about telling the American public that rail tank cars are safe, a train carrying ethanol derailed, rail cars were punctured, caught fire and spilled ethanol into the Mississippi River.

The main argument Denham and the oil and rail industries are making is that it just isn’t possible to replace all of the DOT-111 cars on the schedule proposed by the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Meanwhile, Saxton, the chief engineer at the largest tank car manufacturer claims the industry can meet the deadlines, a point Greenbrier has made throughout the past year regarding this issue and one that is included in the proposed regulations from July 2014. This isn’t a new idea.

As reported on DeSmog almost a year ago, the reason the industry is fighting against these timelines to replace the cars is that they need the cars to meet the increasing industry demand to move crude by rail. Instead of replacing the old unsafe cars, the industry wants to simply add any new cars to the fleet that is moving crude oil.

In this debate — and the debate on what to do about the explosive nature of the Bakken crude oil moved in the DOT-111’s — the industry and its champions in congress like Rep. Denham, continue to engage in finger-pointing and obfuscation to make it appear like these claims are reasonable.

“I know that you have a PR [public relations] staff that is very busy working with a lot of op-ed boards around the country,” Denham said to Saxton, “So as they continue to have those discussions I want to make sure they are dealing with some factual information.”

Rep. Denham did not go on to provide any factual information to dispute Saxton’s claims. What he did was use an example to try to make his case that ignored the facts.

“125,000 tanks cars in the fleet currently today. You have the capacity to build how many… 8,000 a year?” Denham asked Saxton, who confirmed that this was true. “So if you were building 8,000 a year the backlog would be about a decade.”

Although Denham’s “about a decade math” is shaky based on the numbers he was using (125/8=15.6), the industry wants a decade to replace the dangerous rail cars, so that is the answer they always get when they do their math.

However, the whole premise is completely misleading. The facts are that no one is saying that 125,000 tank cars need to be replaced and the rail tank car industry has a much greater capacity than 8,000 cars per year.

The proposed regulations note that there are currently 22,800 non-jacketed DOT-111 tank cars in use for crude oil, and an additional 5,500 jacketed DOT-111’s.

The current industry capacity for new rail tank car production is 35,000 per year.

So when Rep. Denham says “I want to see some numbers” — he is bluffing because he knows that the numbers tell a far different story than the tune he is singing.

At the Feb. 3 hearing, Denham’s behavior illustrated again how these public hearings are merely public relations spectacles designed to send an industry-approved message to the American public.

Meanwhile, the real discussions about the new regulations are happening in private meetings between industry and its regulators. In these private meetings the industry lobbies against new tank cars, new braking systems, making the oil safer, and any speed limits for the trains.

Rep. Denham wants the American public to believe there isn’t “some magic quick fast track” way to replace the unsafe tank cars and that it is going to take a decade.

The reality is that the industry has the capacity to replace the tank cars on the timeline in the proposed regulations and there is no need to wait a decade to address this “unacceptable public risk.”

But since doing that would cut into industry profits, the industry and its representatives in congress maintain this is “unattainable.”

They’re singing from the same songbook, and that should scare every American living near the bomb train blast zone.

California Rep Jeff Denham slows the review of deadly cargo to a halt.

“I just want to make sure that we are all singing the same tune that we have a very safe industry and we want to work together on improving that industry.”

Those were the words of Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on February 3rd at a hearing titled “How the Changing Energy Markets Will Affect U.S. Transportation.” He was directing this advice to Greg Saxton, chief engineer for rail tank car manufacturer Greenbrier.

Denham obviously had a bone to pick with Saxton because prior to the hearing the Modesto Bee, a newspaper in Denham’s home district, ran an editorial making a strong case that the existing tank cars used to transport crude oil are unsafe. The editorial, “Delays on safer rail cars are unacceptable,” didn’t mince words. It was clear on what should happen: “The DOT [Department of Transportation] should adopt rules for those cars then set deadlines to replace every single tank car in America. Our elected representatives should insist on it.”

In Modesto, the elected representative who should be insisting on that is Jeff Denham.

Modesto is also home to Greenbrier’s manufacturing facilities and the editorial quoted Saxton for its conclusion noting his position on the lack of new regulations. “We just need a decision. Twenty years is too long.”

This is not the tune that Chairman Denham wants everyone to be singing. In his comments to Saxton at the hearing he explained his intent.

“I’m making sure that the wrong people are not talking to the Ed boards across the country that would give a wrong perception of our current situation.”

Apparently Saxton is one of the “wrong people” to talk to editorial boards because of his insistence on adhering to the facts. Denham went on to explain what he wants the American public to hear, while of course taking a shot at the Obama administration for good measure.

Rep. Denham said:

“I want to make sure as the administration drags their feet or reorganizes or does some shuffling that there is not a misperception out there in the American public that a) that our current tank cars are not safe, that our industry does not have a safe record and, most importantly, that there is not some magic quick fast track to get all of these new tank cars online very, very quickly.”

Where would the American public get the “misperception” that current oil-by-rail tank cars aren’t safe? Perhaps from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has raised concerns repeatedly about the DOT-111 tank cars for the last 20 years.

This year, the NTSB added the issue of rail tank car safety to its Most Wanted List of items to improve transportation safety. Last year, an NTSB board member testified that using theDOT-111 rail cars to transport crude oil posed an “unacceptable public risk.”

The American public may also have noticed that a couple days after Denham’s talk about telling the American public that rail tank cars are safe, a train carrying ethanol derailed, rail cars were punctured, caught fire and spilled ethanol into the Mississippi River.

The main argument Denham and the oil and rail industries are making is that it just isn’t possible to replace all of the DOT-111 cars on the schedule proposed by the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Meanwhile, Saxton, the chief engineer at the largest tank car manufacturer claims the industry can meet the deadlines, a point Greenbrier has made throughout the past year regarding this issue and one that is included in the proposed regulations from July 2014. This isn’t a new idea.

As reported on DeSmog almost a year ago, the reason the industry is fighting against these timelines to replace the cars is that they need the cars to meet the increasing industry demand to move crude by rail. Instead of replacing the old unsafe cars, the industry wants to simply add any new cars to the fleet that is moving crude oil.

In this debate — and the debate on what to do about the explosive nature of the Bakken crude oil moved in the DOT-111’s — the industry and its champions in congress like Rep. Denham, continue to engage in finger-pointing and obfuscation to make it appear like these claims are reasonable.

“I know that you have a PR [public relations] staff that is very busy working with a lot of op-ed boards around the country,” Denham said to Saxton, “So as they continue to have those discussions I want to make sure they are dealing with some factual information.”

Rep. Denham did not go on to provide any factual information to dispute Saxton’s claims. What he did was use an example to try to make his case that ignored the facts.

“125,000 tanks cars in the fleet currently today. You have the capacity to build how many… 8,000 a year?” Denham asked Saxton, who confirmed that this was true. “So if you were building 8,000 a year the backlog would be about a decade.”

Although Denham’s “about a decade math” is shaky based on the numbers he was using (125/8=15.6), the industry wants a decade to replace the dangerous rail cars, so that is the answer they always get when they do their math.

However, the whole premise is completely misleading. The facts are that no one is saying that 125,000 tank cars need to be replaced and the rail tank car industry has a much greater capacity than 8,000 cars per year.

The proposed regulations note that there are currently 22,800 non-jacketed DOT-111 tank cars in use for crude oil, and an additional 5,500 jacketed DOT-111’s.

The current industry capacity for new rail tank car production is 35,000 per year.

So when Rep. Denham says “I want to see some numbers” — he is bluffing because he knows that the numbers tell a far different story than the tune he is singing.

At the Feb. 3 hearing, Denham’s behavior illustrated again how these public hearings are merely public relations spectacles designed to send an industry-approved message to the American public.

Meanwhile, the real discussions about the new regulations are happening in private meetings between industry and its regulators. In these private meetings the industry lobbies against new tank cars, new braking systems, making the oil safer, and any speed limits for the trains.

Rep. Denham wants the American public to believe there isn’t “some magic quick fast track” way to replace the unsafe tank cars and that it is going to take a decade.

The reality is that the industry has the capacity to replace the tank cars on the timeline in the proposed regulations and there is no need to wait a decade to address this “unacceptable public risk.”

But since doing that would cut into industry profits, the industry and its representatives in congress maintain this is “unattainable.”

They’re singing from the same songbook, and that should scare every American living near the bomb train blast zone.

Two short years ago, industry analysts and television pundits were toasting North Dakota as the “Saudi Arabia of North America.” But the fracking rush that made the Peace Garden State the poster child of the U.S. energy boom has gone bust.

North Dakota’s numerous gas flares, which have been notably visible from space, are flickering out as drilling rigs shut down and tens of thousands of energy workers face reduced hours and pink slips. Small North Dakota towns recently bustling with workers and other fortune seekers are returning to the rural tranquility they once knew.

So why has fracking slipped into hibernation? Depends who you ask. Many industry analysts say fracking is a victim of its own success, helping to drive oil prices so low it was no longer affordable to frack new wells. Others point to the drop in global demand, spurred by a slowdown in the Chinese economy, alternative energies and an American public that’s not only driving more fuel-efficient cars, but driving less. Most popular, perhaps, is the theory that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, purposely sabotaged the U.S. fracking industry by maintaining its current production levels while global oil demand falls, causing prices to spiral downward.

But fracking is expensive. While much depends on geology and geography, fracking companies need to fetch prices between $55 and $100 a barrel just to break even. As the price of oil is now at $44 a barrel — and threatening to drop even further — it makes little sense to develop or even operate these sites, many run by relatively small energy companies. Meanwhile, many OPEC nations, which mostly rely on less expensive and conventional extraction methods, can still continue making profits even at $30-35 a barrel.

So, while the demise of fracking is a story of supply and demand, it is also a story about how OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia, has responded to the threat U.S. oil production presents to its preeminence in the global market. OPEC is flexing some muscle, showing the world that it’s willing to wait out a short-term plunge in prices while the thousands of Lilliputian fracking operations that challenge its dominance shut down or fail.

Roughly a third of U.S. fracking operations are now too cost prohibitive to continue, say economists. Lending to companies for fracking operations has stopped and investors may not come back even if oil prices are high enough for them to make meager profits.

“Smart people don’t invest in things that break even,” says energy expert Arthur Berman on Oilprice.com. “Why should I take a risk to make no money on an energy company when I can invest in a variable annuity or a REIT that has almost no risk that will pay me a reasonable margin? So are companies OK at current oil prices? Hell no! They are dying at these prices.”

Of course, many wells are not fracked for oil but for natural gas, but dropping prices for natural gas is affecting production in the Marcellus Shale. Wholesale natural gas prices have dropped from about $13.42 per million BTU in 2005 to about $2.85 today and are still dropping thanks to a milder than normal winter in the Northeast. At those prices, the incentive to justify further investment in fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale is vaporizing.

However, unlike with oil, natural gas fracked in Northeastern states is much less expensive to produce than natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico and Canada. So it's unlikely that currently operating wells in the shale will suffer much from falling natural gas prices.

Not even Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s recent decision to ban fracking in New York enticed speculators to push prices upward. New York was never going to be a big player in fracking, as the state’s available reserves in the shale are minuscule compared to West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Many companies that leased land in New York for fracking decided to pull out, as the high costs of starting up would eat away at any profit. Energy companies have become more gun shy as existing local and state-imposed limitations make nearly two-thirds of the viable land unavailable to be fracked.

Pipeline to Nowhere?

While Congress is pinning its hopes that the Keystone XL pipeline expansion will bring a jobs boom to middle America, cheap oil prices are also threatening this controversial project. The business case for building the 1,179 pipeline just isn’t there. Not only is tar-sands oil from Canada much more expensive to extract (around $74 a barrel), it's more expensive to transport, whether by rail or pipeline.

Tar-sands oil is also not attractive to refiners as it's much harder to convert into transportation fuels, so it typically sells for $20 a barrel less than the North Dakota’s Bakken Crude and $30 less per barrel than Texas crude. The State Department’s study on the Keystone XL pipeline determined that if overall oil prices dropped between $65 and $75, it would erase the profits of tar sands extraction. So at today’s even lower oil prices, it’s all but worthless today, as would be the pipeline.

However, TransCanada, the pipeline’s builders, and supporters say Keystone XL is a long-term investment and they are unfazed by commodity prices.

Some independent analysts, however, say that TransCanada is being overly optimistic and that investors won’t put up with years of losses, or even the notion that the pipeline could become a stone around the neck of TransCanada should OPEC choose to manipulate prices again. Even the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy research says there are many questions about the viability of the pipeline.

The High Price of Low Gas Prices

While American consumers and businesses might enjoy the lower oil and natural gas prices, there is a dark side to this windfall. As shale exploration is all but dead, and most of it was funded by some $200 billion in bonds and other borrowings, there’s concern that this money will never be paid back, and such losses could lead to major adjustments, possibly even a collapse of the global financial markets similar to the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 and the housing market bubble in 2008.

Low oil prices are already taking their toll on Alaska, which has an economy largely based on fossil-fuel extraction. While only about 20% of Alaska’s wells are fracked, oil production is even more expensive than in western Canada and in North Dakota, costing as much as $78 a barrel to produce.

Alaska has no income or sales tax and virtually funds itself from taxing crude oil. The state’s residents have become used to receiving annual checks from a $51 billion fund from these taxes. Alaska budgeted on the assumption that oil would be about $100 a barrel throughout 2015. But the state will have to dip into its rainy day fund to keep from going belly up, and investment ratings agencies say Alaska will blow through that fund quickly.

“The oil plunge caught them off guard, and now they are trying to recalibrate,” said Ted Hampton, an analyst at Moody’s Investment Services, which downgraded Alaska’s credit rating from “stable” to “negative” in December 2014.

But Alaska doesn’t seem convinced that low crude oil prices are here to stay. While drastic budget cuts and dipping into emergency funds is the plan for the next two years, the state’s acting revenue commissioner, Marcia Davis, is forecasting better days in 2017, with oil prices back to above $90 a barrel.

North Dakota doesn’t rely on funds from fossil-fuel extraction to keep the lights on in Bismarck, so it's better protected from such large swings in oil prices. Still, the loss of oil royalties, taxes on crude oil and taxes collected on oil workers will leave it several billion behind on its revenue projections this year.

The Fracking Undead

Back in November, Russian oil baron Leonid Fedun predicted the fracking industry would crash. He told Bloomberg News it was the objective of OPEC to clean up the “marginal American oil market” and once that goal is accomplished, the price of oil will once again rise above $100 a barrel.

“The shale boom is on par with the dot-com boom,” said Fedun. “The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish.”

It’s likely that the larger energy companies will pick up the pieces, at pennies on the dollar, from the smaller ones that fail. These larger companies will be able to weather big swings in commodity prices and speculators will be much more cautious the second time around, making a second fracking collapse less likely.

Cheap oil also might create large changes in how the world consumes fuel, environmental analysts say. They note that when oil prices were this low last time, large gas-guzzling SUVs were de rigueur and conserving and efficiency fell down on the list of priorities. Similar increases in demand could quickly send the pendulum swinging the other way.

"If oil is high, people will burn less; that's a good a thing," Jackie Savitz, vice president for U.S. Oceans at Oceana told NPR.

Fracking as we know it is beginning to wither, ironically at the hands of the same oil markets that spawned it. But nothing lasts forever, not even gifts from Saudi kings. So when global oil production is cut or if we return to our wasteful ways, prices will recover and the fracking boom will spring back to life. Unless that is, anti-fracking activists remain vigilant and kill it first.

Two short years ago, industry analysts and television pundits were toasting North Dakota as the “Saudi Arabia of North America.” But the fracking rush that made the Peace Garden State the poster child of the U.S. energy boom has gone bust.

North Dakota’s numerous gas flares, which have been notably visible from space, are flickering out as drilling rigs shut down and tens of thousands of energy workers face reduced hours and pink slips. Small North Dakota towns recently bustling with workers and other fortune seekers are returning to the rural tranquility they once knew.

So why has fracking slipped into hibernation? Depends who you ask. Many industry analysts say fracking is a victim of its own success, helping to drive oil prices so low it was no longer affordable to frack new wells. Others point to the drop in global demand, spurred by a slowdown in the Chinese economy, alternative energies and an American public that’s not only driving more fuel-efficient cars, but driving less. Most popular, perhaps, is the theory that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, purposely sabotaged the U.S. fracking industry by maintaining its current production levels while global oil demand falls, causing prices to spiral downward.

But fracking is expensive. While much depends on geology and geography, fracking companies need to fetch prices between $55 and $100 a barrel just to break even. As the price of oil is now at $44 a barrel — and threatening to drop even further — it makes little sense to develop or even operate these sites, many run by relatively small energy companies. Meanwhile, many OPEC nations, which mostly rely on less expensive and conventional extraction methods, can still continue making profits even at $30-35 a barrel.

So, while the demise of fracking is a story of supply and demand, it is also a story about how OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia, has responded to the threat U.S. oil production presents to its preeminence in the global market. OPEC is flexing some muscle, showing the world that it’s willing to wait out a short-term plunge in prices while the thousands of Lilliputian fracking operations that challenge its dominance shut down or fail.

Roughly a third of U.S. fracking operations are now too cost prohibitive to continue, say economists. Lending to companies for fracking operations has stopped and investors may not come back even if oil prices are high enough for them to make meager profits.

“Smart people don’t invest in things that break even,” says energy expert Arthur Berman on Oilprice.com. “Why should I take a risk to make no money on an energy company when I can invest in a variable annuity or a REIT that has almost no risk that will pay me a reasonable margin? So are companies OK at current oil prices? Hell no! They are dying at these prices.”

Of course, many wells are not fracked for oil but for natural gas, but dropping prices for natural gas is affecting production in the Marcellus Shale. Wholesale natural gas prices have dropped from about $13.42 per million BTU in 2005 to about $2.85 today and are still dropping thanks to a milder than normal winter in the Northeast. At those prices, the incentive to justify further investment in fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale is vaporizing.

However, unlike with oil, natural gas fracked in Northeastern states is much less expensive to produce than natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico and Canada. So it's unlikely that currently operating wells in the shale will suffer much from falling natural gas prices.

Not even Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s recent decision to ban fracking in New York enticed speculators to push prices upward. New York was never going to be a big player in fracking, as the state’s available reserves in the shale are minuscule compared to West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Many companies that leased land in New York for fracking decided to pull out, as the high costs of starting up would eat away at any profit. Energy companies have become more gun shy as existing local and state-imposed limitations make nearly two-thirds of the viable land unavailable to be fracked.

Pipeline to Nowhere?

While Congress is pinning its hopes that the Keystone XL pipeline expansion will bring a jobs boom to middle America, cheap oil prices are also threatening this controversial project. The business case for building the 1,179 pipeline just isn’t there. Not only is tar-sands oil from Canada much more expensive to extract (around $74 a barrel), it's more expensive to transport, whether by rail or pipeline.

Tar-sands oil is also not attractive to refiners as it's much harder to convert into transportation fuels, so it typically sells for $20 a barrel less than the North Dakota’s Bakken Crude and $30 less per barrel than Texas crude. The State Department’s study on the Keystone XL pipeline determined that if overall oil prices dropped between $65 and $75, it would erase the profits of tar sands extraction. So at today’s even lower oil prices, it’s all but worthless today, as would be the pipeline.

However, TransCanada, the pipeline’s builders, and supporters say Keystone XL is a long-term investment and they are unfazed by commodity prices.

Some independent analysts, however, say that TransCanada is being overly optimistic and that investors won’t put up with years of losses, or even the notion that the pipeline could become a stone around the neck of TransCanada should OPEC choose to manipulate prices again. Even the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy research says there are many questions about the viability of the pipeline.

The High Price of Low Gas Prices

While American consumers and businesses might enjoy the lower oil and natural gas prices, there is a dark side to this windfall. As shale exploration is all but dead, and most of it was funded by some $200 billion in bonds and other borrowings, there’s concern that this money will never be paid back, and such losses could lead to major adjustments, possibly even a collapse of the global financial markets similar to the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 and the housing market bubble in 2008.

Low oil prices are already taking their toll on Alaska, which has an economy largely based on fossil-fuel extraction. While only about 20% of Alaska’s wells are fracked, oil production is even more expensive than in western Canada and in North Dakota, costing as much as $78 a barrel to produce.

Alaska has no income or sales tax and virtually funds itself from taxing crude oil. The state’s residents have become used to receiving annual checks from a $51 billion fund from these taxes. Alaska budgeted on the assumption that oil would be about $100 a barrel throughout 2015. But the state will have to dip into its rainy day fund to keep from going belly up, and investment ratings agencies say Alaska will blow through that fund quickly.

“The oil plunge caught them off guard, and now they are trying to recalibrate,” said Ted Hampton, an analyst at Moody’s Investment Services, which downgraded Alaska’s credit rating from “stable” to “negative” in December 2014.

But Alaska doesn’t seem convinced that low crude oil prices are here to stay. While drastic budget cuts and dipping into emergency funds is the plan for the next two years, the state’s acting revenue commissioner, Marcia Davis, is forecasting better days in 2017, with oil prices back to above $90 a barrel.

North Dakota doesn’t rely on funds from fossil-fuel extraction to keep the lights on in Bismarck, so it's better protected from such large swings in oil prices. Still, the loss of oil royalties, taxes on crude oil and taxes collected on oil workers will leave it several billion behind on its revenue projections this year.

The Fracking Undead

Back in November, Russian oil baron Leonid Fedun predicted the fracking industry would crash. He told Bloomberg News it was the objective of OPEC to clean up the “marginal American oil market” and once that goal is accomplished, the price of oil will once again rise above $100 a barrel.

“The shale boom is on par with the dot-com boom,” said Fedun. “The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish.”

It’s likely that the larger energy companies will pick up the pieces, at pennies on the dollar, from the smaller ones that fail. These larger companies will be able to weather big swings in commodity prices and speculators will be much more cautious the second time around, making a second fracking collapse less likely.

Cheap oil also might create large changes in how the world consumes fuel, environmental analysts say. They note that when oil prices were this low last time, large gas-guzzling SUVs were de rigueur and conserving and efficiency fell down on the list of priorities. Similar increases in demand could quickly send the pendulum swinging the other way.

"If oil is high, people will burn less; that's a good a thing," Jackie Savitz, vice president for U.S. Oceans at Oceana told NPR.

Fracking as we know it is beginning to wither, ironically at the hands of the same oil markets that spawned it. But nothing lasts forever, not even gifts from Saudi kings. So when global oil production is cut or if we return to our wasteful ways, prices will recover and the fracking boom will spring back to life. Unless that is, anti-fracking activists remain vigilant and kill it first.

]]>

Related Stories

]]>
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/children-given-lifelong-ban-talking-about-frackingChildren Given Lifelong Ban on Talking About Frackinghttp://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/84145259/0/alternet_fracking~Children-Given-Lifelong-Ban-on-Talking-About-Fracking

Two Pennsylvanian children will live their lives under a gag order imposed under a $750,000 settlement.

Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.

The Hallowich family had earlier accused oil and gas companies of destroying their 10-acre farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania and putting their children's health in danger. Their property was adjacent to major industrial operations: four gas wells, gas compressor stations, and a waste water pond, which the Hallowich family said contaminated their water supply and caused burning eyes, sore throats and headaches.

Gag orders – on adults – are typical in settlements reached between oil and gas operators and residents in the heart of shale gas boom in Pennsylvania. But the company lawyer's insistence on extending the lifetime gag order to the Hallowichs' children gave even the judge pause, according to the court documents.

The family gag order was a condition of the settlement. The couple told the court they agreed because they wanted to move to a new home away from the gas fields, and to raise their children in a safer environment. "We need to get the children out of there for their health and safety," the children's mother, Stephanie Hallowich, told the court.

She was still troubled by the gag order, however. "My concern is that they're minors. I'm not quite sure I fully understand. We know we're signing for silence for ever but how is this taking away our children's rights being minors now? I mean my daughter is turning seven today, my son is 10."

The children's father, Chris Hallowich, went on to tell the court it might be difficult to ensure the children's absolute silence on fracking – given that their ages and that the family lives in the middle of a shale gas boom.

"They're going to be among other children that are children of people within this industry and they're going to be around it every day of their life, that if they in turn say one of the illegal words when they're outside of our guardianship we're going to have difficulty controlling that," he said. "We can tell them, they can not say this, they can not say that, but if on the playground....."

The court transcripts were released in response to an open records request by thePittsburgh Post Gazette, which first reported on the children's lifetime gag order. The newspaper has been fighting for the release of all documents in the Hallowich settlement.

Campaigners say the secrecy has helped the industry resist more stringent environmental and health controls – by burying evidence of water contamination and health problems associated with natural gas operations. The Hallowichs' lawyer, Peter Villari, told the court he had never seen a gag order imposed on children in his 30 years of practicing law, according to the released transcript.

During the proceedings, the attorney representing Range Resources, James Swetz, reaffirmed the company sought the gag order on the children. "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it," he told the court.

Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream and MarkWest Energy were also defendants in the case.

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette. He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.

Two Pennsylvanian children will live their lives under a gag order imposed under a $750,000 settlement.

Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.

The Hallowich family had earlier accused oil and gas companies of destroying their 10-acre farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania and putting their children's health in danger. Their property was adjacent to major industrial operations: four gas wells, gas compressor stations, and a waste water pond, which the Hallowich family said contaminated their water supply and caused burning eyes, sore throats and headaches.

Gag orders – on adults – are typical in settlements reached between oil and gas operators and residents in the heart of shale gas boom in Pennsylvania. But the company lawyer's insistence on extending the lifetime gag order to the Hallowichs' children gave even the judge pause, according to the court documents.

The family gag order was a condition of the settlement. The couple told the court they agreed because they wanted to move to a new home away from the gas fields, and to raise their children in a safer environment. "We need to get the children out of there for their health and safety," the children's mother, Stephanie Hallowich, told the court.

She was still troubled by the gag order, however. "My concern is that they're minors. I'm not quite sure I fully understand. We know we're signing for silence for ever but how is this taking away our children's rights being minors now? I mean my daughter is turning seven today, my son is 10."

The children's father, Chris Hallowich, went on to tell the court it might be difficult to ensure the children's absolute silence on fracking – given that their ages and that the family lives in the middle of a shale gas boom.

"They're going to be among other children that are children of people within this industry and they're going to be around it every day of their life, that if they in turn say one of the illegal words when they're outside of our guardianship we're going to have difficulty controlling that," he said. "We can tell them, they can not say this, they can not say that, but if on the playground....."

The court transcripts were released in response to an open records request by thePittsburgh Post Gazette, which first reported on the children's lifetime gag order. The newspaper has been fighting for the release of all documents in the Hallowich settlement.

Campaigners say the secrecy has helped the industry resist more stringent environmental and health controls – by burying evidence of water contamination and health problems associated with natural gas operations. The Hallowichs' lawyer, Peter Villari, told the court he had never seen a gag order imposed on children in his 30 years of practicing law, according to the released transcript.

During the proceedings, the attorney representing Range Resources, James Swetz, reaffirmed the company sought the gag order on the children. "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it," he told the court.

Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream and MarkWest Energy were also defendants in the case.

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette. He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.

A U.S. federal court has ordered a halt in proceedings until May in a case centering around oil-by-rail tankers pitting the Sierra Club and ForestEthics against the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT). As a result, potentially explosive DOT-111 oil tank cars, dubbed “bomb trains” by activists, can continue to roll through towns and cities across the U.S. indefinitely.

“The briefing schedule previously established by the court is vacated,” wrote Chris Goelz, a mediator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. “This appeal is stayed until May 12, 2015, or pending publication in the Federal Register of the final tank car standards and phase out of DOT-111 tank cars, whichever occurs first.”

“In a joint filing, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) contend the tank car industry doesn’t have the capacity to retrofit the estimated 143,000 tank cars that would need to be modernized to meet the new specifications,” wrote The Journal News. “Nor can manufacturers build new tank cars fast enough, they say.”

“The courts and the administration are dragging their feet on common sense safety steps that will take the most dangerous oil tanker cars off the tracks, slow down these trains, and help emergency responders prepare for accidents,” Eddie Scher, communications director for ForestEthics, told DeSmogBlog.

“We filed our lawsuit because the DOT is not moving fast enough on safety. This court's decision ignored the imminent threat to the 25 million Americans who live in the blast zone and the communities around the nation that don't have the luxury of waiting for DOTand the rail and oil industry lobbyists to finish their rule.”

A U.S. federal court has ordered a halt in proceedings until May in a case centering around oil-by-rail tankers pitting the Sierra Club and ForestEthics against the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT). As a result, potentially explosive DOT-111 oil tank cars, dubbed “bomb trains” by activists, can continue to roll through towns and cities across the U.S. indefinitely.

“The briefing schedule previously established by the court is vacated,” wrote Chris Goelz, a mediator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. “This appeal is stayed until May 12, 2015, or pending publication in the Federal Register of the final tank car standards and phase out of DOT-111 tank cars, whichever occurs first.”

“In a joint filing, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) contend the tank car industry doesn’t have the capacity to retrofit the estimated 143,000 tank cars that would need to be modernized to meet the new specifications,” wrote The Journal News. “Nor can manufacturers build new tank cars fast enough, they say.”

“The courts and the administration are dragging their feet on common sense safety steps that will take the most dangerous oil tanker cars off the tracks, slow down these trains, and help emergency responders prepare for accidents,” Eddie Scher, communications director for ForestEthics, told DeSmogBlog.

“We filed our lawsuit because the DOT is not moving fast enough on safety. This court's decision ignored the imminent threat to the 25 million Americans who live in the blast zone and the communities around the nation that don't have the luxury of waiting for DOTand the rail and oil industry lobbyists to finish their rule.”

]]>
]]>
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/fracking-spill-north-dakotaRecord Spill Contaminates North Dakota River With 3 Million Gallons of Fracking Wastewaterhttp://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/83935018/0/alternet_fracking~Record-Spill-Contaminates-North-Dakota-River-With-Million-Gallons-of-Fracking-Wastewater

The spill was reported 17 days ago when Operator Summit Midstream Partners found a toxic leak of salty drilling waste from a pipeline in the heart of the Bakken oil boom.

Officials say there’s no immediate threat to human health but as Marketplace’s Scott Tong reports yesterday, there could be trouble ahead. He interviews Duke geochemist Avner Vengosh who has sampled frack wastewater and has found that “North Dakota’s is 10 times saltier than the ocean, that endangers aquatic life and trees, and has it has ammonium and radioactive elements.”

Tong also interviewed Hannah Wiseman, law professor at Florida State, who says the disposal of fracking wastewater is underregulated.

“A typical well can spit about 1,000 gallons a day,” says Tong. “Some of the water is recycled back into fracking, stored in pits or used to de-ice roads. It’s also injected deep underground, which has been known to cause earthquakes.”

Wiseman shares that fracking wastewater issues also exist in Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

The spill was reported 17 days ago when Operator Summit Midstream Partners found a toxic leak of salty drilling waste from a pipeline in the heart of the Bakken oil boom.

Officials say there’s no immediate threat to human health but as Marketplace’s Scott Tong reports yesterday, there could be trouble ahead. He interviews Duke geochemist Avner Vengosh who has sampled frack wastewater and has found that “North Dakota’s is 10 times saltier than the ocean, that endangers aquatic life and trees, and has it has ammonium and radioactive elements.”

Tong also interviewed Hannah Wiseman, law professor at Florida State, who says the disposal of fracking wastewater is underregulated.

“A typical well can spit about 1,000 gallons a day,” says Tong. “Some of the water is recycled back into fracking, stored in pits or used to de-ice roads. It’s also injected deep underground, which has been known to cause earthquakes.”

Wiseman shares that fracking wastewater issues also exist in Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

Motion passed by 63 votes to 32 as Obama administration continues to oppose bill because of climate change issues

Ten Democratic senators have voted with Republicans to allow the progress of a bill to extend the Keystone oil pipeline, placing more political pressure on the White House to reconsider its proposed veto of the legislation.

The procedural motion was passed by 63 votes to 32, comfortably clearing the three-fifths majority needed to avoid a filibuster and falling just short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overcome a presidential veto when it comes to a final vote.

But some of the Democrats, who were also joined by Maine independent Angus King, may switch votes in future to avoid embarrassing Barack Obama who has said he is opposed to Congress interfering in a long-running administration review of the pipeline extension.

The Democrats who joined senator King in voting for cloture on the motion to proceed included: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Warner of Virginia. King has said he would vote against final passage, and five senators have not voted at all yet.

Motion passed by 63 votes to 32 as Obama administration continues to oppose bill because of climate change issues

Ten Democratic senators have voted with Republicans to allow the progress of a bill to extend the Keystone oil pipeline, placing more political pressure on the White House to reconsider its proposed veto of the legislation.

The procedural motion was passed by 63 votes to 32, comfortably clearing the three-fifths majority needed to avoid a filibuster and falling just short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overcome a presidential veto when it comes to a final vote.

But some of the Democrats, who were also joined by Maine independent Angus King, may switch votes in future to avoid embarrassing Barack Obama who has said he is opposed to Congress interfering in a long-running administration review of the pipeline extension.

The Democrats who joined senator King in voting for cloture on the motion to proceed included: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Warner of Virginia. King has said he would vote against final passage, and five senators have not voted at all yet.

Now, we learn from Nicolás Fedor Sulcic that Pope Francis is supportive of the anti-fracking movement. Watch this interview by Fernando Solanas where he met with Pope Francis soon after finishing a film about fracking in Argentina.

The movie, La Guerra del Fracking or The Fracking War, was banned in cinemas by the Argentinian government, so the filmmakers decided to post it on YouTube. We are awaiting translation of the film and then we’ll feature it on EcoWatch.

“When I was doing research for the film, every time I’d ask someone if they knew what fracking was they had no idea,” said Sulcic. The problem was that “the government didn’t call it fracking, they called it ‘non conventional gas’ so no one was making the link to what was happening in Argentina to what was happening America. I got really mad and knew something had to be done to make people aware of what was going on. I saw the website Artist Against Fracking and felt that was a very good example of what was needed to be done here to take the cause to more people rather than just environmental activists.”

With support by Peace Nobel prize Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Oscar winning Juan Jose Campanella and other very well known Argentinian intellectuals and social leaders, a website was launched to help raise awareness about the dangers of fracking Argentina.

Now, we learn from Nicolás Fedor Sulcic that Pope Francis is supportive of the anti-fracking movement. Watch this interview by Fernando Solanas where he met with Pope Francis soon after finishing a film about fracking in Argentina.

The movie, La Guerra del Fracking or The Fracking War, was banned in cinemas by the Argentinian government, so the filmmakers decided to post it on YouTube. We are awaiting translation of the film and then we’ll feature it on EcoWatch.

“When I was doing research for the film, every time I’d ask someone if they knew what fracking was they had no idea,” said Sulcic. The problem was that “the government didn’t call it fracking, they called it ‘non conventional gas’ so no one was making the link to what was happening in Argentina to what was happening America. I got really mad and knew something had to be done to make people aware of what was going on. I saw the website Artist Against Fracking and felt that was a very good example of what was needed to be done here to take the cause to more people rather than just environmental activists.”

With support by Peace Nobel prize Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Oscar winning Juan Jose Campanella and other very well known Argentinian intellectuals and social leaders, a website was launched to help raise awareness about the dangers of fracking Argentina.

A Nebraska court and Congress may be all for it, but economics might sink the proposed pipeline.

At 3 p.m. on a Friday last January, two days before the 2014 Super Bowl, the State Department released a favorable assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline’s environmental impacts. Though citizens had submitted nearly two million comments during consideration of the report, the timing suggested officials hoped most people would be focused on football.

Events since then have made the State Department’s reluctance to draw attention to its assessment look like the right strategy. The report’s assumptions about oil prices and alternatives to Keystone XL have been thoroughly undermined, and prospects for continued expansion of the tar sands, the vast Canadian oil deposit that the pipeline would link to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, have significantly declined.

Despite this, leaders of the new Republican-controlled Congress this week pushed forward legislation that would force approval of Keystone XL, and they expected both houses to pass it this month. Congressional action was moving ahead even though the White House announced on Tuesday that President Obama would veto the legislation.

Yet during the past year, the case for the pipeline has developed huge cracks. In giving Keystone XL a pass on its environmental impacts — a step toward final approval — the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs had argued that the pipeline would not generate increased greenhouse gas emissions because tar sands expansion is inevitable. If Keystone isn’t built, the report assumed, other pipelines from the tar sands would be, and railroads would provide additional capacity. These conclusions reaffirm one of the oil industry’s hoariest — and, historically speaking, largely accurate — maxims: Oil always finds a way to market.

But the maxim may not apply to tar sands crude.

Since declaring in 2006 that his country was an “emerging energy superpower,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has staked his administration on developing Alberta’s tar sands — a bucket of bitumen nearly the size of Florida that constitutes the world’s third-largest crude oil deposit. With encouragement from the Canadian government, as long as a decade ago pipeline companies began planning four major pipelines that would connect the landlocked tar sands to ports and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Back then, pipelines were rarely controversial, and the planners expected easy paths to construction. Instead, they have faced a blizzard of political opposition, lawsuits, adverse court decisions, and civil disobedience, to the point that all four pipelines now face substantial odds against completion.

In June, a vital ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court strengthened land rights of Canada’s indigenous groups, known as First Nations. Even more than environmentalists, First Nations provide the backbone of opposition to the pipelines in Canada, and the three proposed Canadian pipelines would wend through hundreds of First Nations territories. The decision instantly set back Northern Gateway, a $6.5 billion, 731-mile pipeline that would carry up to 525,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the heart of First Nations opposition on the British Columbia coast. Even though Northern Gateway has already secured the federal government’s approval, its prospects of winning a go-ahead in British Columbia are considered bleak. A $5.4 billion proposal to triple the capacity to 890,000 barrels a day of Trans Mountain, a pipeline that runs from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, also faces growing opposition.

Resistance to both pipelines is so strong that even the Canadian government, previously the most ardent supporter of the projects, has seemed to back away — a stunning development for an administration that has pinned its fate to the tar sands. “We’ve done everything we can in a responsible way,” federal Industry Minister James Moore, who is a native of British Columbia, said last month. “It’s up to the [pipeline] firms to deliver on these projects.”

Energy East, the biggest proposed pipeline of all, would carry 1.1 million barrels a day of tar sands crude all the way to refineries on the East Coast, a distance of 2,850 miles. In addition to facing intense opposition from some of the 180 First Nations it would pass through, the project must satisfy seven stringent conditions laid down in November by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec. One requires TransCanada, the pipeline’s owner, to address climate change induced by tar sands emissions — a subject the Harper government has done everything in its power to avoid, including by suppressing scientific inquiry into climate change.

As for Keystone XL, the approval of which Harper called a “no-brainer” three years ago, even if quickly authorized by the new GOP-controlled Congress, it now faces a veto from Obama that Republicans would need to muster the votes to override. In his most recent comments on Keystone, at a press conference on December 19, Obama said the pipeline “is not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.” And on “The Colbert Report” earlier in the month, he said the pipeline’s modest pluses needed to be weighed against its impact on climate change, “which could be disastrous.”

Even railroads, touted a year ago as a solution to the tar sands’ transportation woes, are presenting oil companies with a new set of problems, from a tank car shortage and limited unloading facilities to spectacular derailments. In addition, rail transport adds another ten dollars per barrel or so to the already steep cost of tar sands oil.

Without opposition, Keystone’s 830,000-barrel capacity would have become operational in 2012, and Northern Gateway would already be under construction. Instead, tar sands oil has run into a bottleneck, with developers increasingly anxious to find outlets. Shipping constraints and higher costs led oil companies to suspend three major tar sands projects this year, and many other companies reduced capital expenditures. Oil Change International, a clean-energy advocacy group, estimates that between 2010 and 2013, tar sands developers lost $30.9 billion because of the loss of markets for their oil and competition from lower-priced light crude. Of that figure, Oil Change International claims, more than half can be directly attributed to the success of anti-pipeline campaigns.

All this happened before tar sands developers received an even bigger blow: the collapse in the last six months of world oil prices. Tar sands crude requires an assortment of energy-intensive processes that make it among the most expensive of the world’s crudes to produce. Operations were already slowing when oil cost more than $90 a barrel, but this week its price fell below $50, far below the tar sands projects’ break-even point. If oil prices stay low, Keystone XL loses all financial rationale.

The news for tar sands developers could get worse still. While the arrival of “peak oil” — the date at which global oil supplies begin to decline — has been indefinitely postponed by the advent of hydraulic fracturing, the United States reached peak oildemand in 2005. The decline in demand in the U.S. is likely to continue for a range of reasons. Electric cars and hybrids are becoming more popular, and gasoline cars are using fuel more efficiently. Americans are tapping more and more renewable sources of power such as wind and solar. Baby boomers, formerly enthusiastic car drivers, are retiring, and young people are driving far less.

Most ominous for tar sands producers, the announcement in November of an agreement on cutting carbon emissions between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping has raised hopes that a forceful international climate treaty can at last be negotiated, perhaps at the Paris climate change conference in December 2015. If that happens, tar sands developers presumably would try to gallop toward the finish line, seeking to extract a maximum amount of crude before the pact goes into effect.

Instead of becoming the beating heart of a North American energy superpower, the tar sands now stand poised to become a different kind of symbol. Whereas once they stood for oil production at its most excessive (with high rates of greenhouse gas emissions, massive water and soil pollution, and energy inefficiency), that notion is being turned inside out: The tar sands soon may represent a pioneering victory in combating climate change, on the first major battlefield where concern over the globe’s future overrode oil revenues.

The struggle has already taught climate change campaigners a lesson. They have tried for a couple of decades to persuade governments to agree to substantial percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by a certain remote date, without much success. The goals were vital but intangible and abstract, not exactly fodder for rallying cries. But people can envision a piece of infrastructure like a pipeline and the dangers it poses along its route. In fact, the core of opposition to the tar sands pipelines hasn’t revolved around climate change, but rather fear of leaks and their impacts on soil, waterways, and aquifers.

“Instead of big groups of scientists going to local communities and saying, ‘You should be worried about climate change,’ farmers in Nebraska and First Nations fishermen in northern British Columbia started their own campaigns,” Tzeporah Berman, a prominent Canadian environmental strategist, told me. “What we’re seeing is a new climate movement with frontline communities at the forefront. That’s much stronger, with broader.

A Nebraska court and Congress may be all for it, but economics might sink the proposed pipeline.

At 3 p.m. on a Friday last January, two days before the 2014 Super Bowl, the State Department released a favorable assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline’s environmental impacts. Though citizens had submitted nearly two million comments during consideration of the report, the timing suggested officials hoped most people would be focused on football.

Events since then have made the State Department’s reluctance to draw attention to its assessment look like the right strategy. The report’s assumptions about oil prices and alternatives to Keystone XL have been thoroughly undermined, and prospects for continued expansion of the tar sands, the vast Canadian oil deposit that the pipeline would link to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, have significantly declined.

Despite this, leaders of the new Republican-controlled Congress this week pushed forward legislation that would force approval of Keystone XL, and they expected both houses to pass it this month. Congressional action was moving ahead even though the White House announced on Tuesday that President Obama would veto the legislation.

Yet during the past year, the case for the pipeline has developed huge cracks. In giving Keystone XL a pass on its environmental impacts — a step toward final approval — the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs had argued that the pipeline would not generate increased greenhouse gas emissions because tar sands expansion is inevitable. If Keystone isn’t built, the report assumed, other pipelines from the tar sands would be, and railroads would provide additional capacity. These conclusions reaffirm one of the oil industry’s hoariest — and, historically speaking, largely accurate — maxims: Oil always finds a way to market.

But the maxim may not apply to tar sands crude.

Since declaring in 2006 that his country was an “emerging energy superpower,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has staked his administration on developing Alberta’s tar sands — a bucket of bitumen nearly the size of Florida that constitutes the world’s third-largest crude oil deposit. With encouragement from the Canadian government, as long as a decade ago pipeline companies began planning four major pipelines that would connect the landlocked tar sands to ports and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Back then, pipelines were rarely controversial, and the planners expected easy paths to construction. Instead, they have faced a blizzard of political opposition, lawsuits, adverse court decisions, and civil disobedience, to the point that all four pipelines now face substantial odds against completion.

In June, a vital ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court strengthened land rights of Canada’s indigenous groups, known as First Nations. Even more than environmentalists, First Nations provide the backbone of opposition to the pipelines in Canada, and the three proposed Canadian pipelines would wend through hundreds of First Nations territories. The decision instantly set back Northern Gateway, a $6.5 billion, 731-mile pipeline that would carry up to 525,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the heart of First Nations opposition on the British Columbia coast. Even though Northern Gateway has already secured the federal government’s approval, its prospects of winning a go-ahead in British Columbia are considered bleak. A $5.4 billion proposal to triple the capacity to 890,000 barrels a day of Trans Mountain, a pipeline that runs from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, also faces growing opposition.

Resistance to both pipelines is so strong that even the Canadian government, previously the most ardent supporter of the projects, has seemed to back away — a stunning development for an administration that has pinned its fate to the tar sands. “We’ve done everything we can in a responsible way,” federal Industry Minister James Moore, who is a native of British Columbia, said last month. “It’s up to the [pipeline] firms to deliver on these projects.”

Energy East, the biggest proposed pipeline of all, would carry 1.1 million barrels a day of tar sands crude all the way to refineries on the East Coast, a distance of 2,850 miles. In addition to facing intense opposition from some of the 180 First Nations it would pass through, the project must satisfy seven stringent conditions laid down in November by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec. One requires TransCanada, the pipeline’s owner, to address climate change induced by tar sands emissions — a subject the Harper government has done everything in its power to avoid, including by suppressing scientific inquiry into climate change.

As for Keystone XL, the approval of which Harper called a “no-brainer” three years ago, even if quickly authorized by the new GOP-controlled Congress, it now faces a veto from Obama that Republicans would need to muster the votes to override. In his most recent comments on Keystone, at a press conference on December 19, Obama said the pipeline “is not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.” And on “The Colbert Report” earlier in the month, he said the pipeline’s modest pluses needed to be weighed against its impact on climate change, “which could be disastrous.”

Even railroads, touted a year ago as a solution to the tar sands’ transportation woes, are presenting oil companies with a new set of problems, from a tank car shortage and limited unloading facilities to spectacular derailments. In addition, rail transport adds another ten dollars per barrel or so to the already steep cost of tar sands oil.

Without opposition, Keystone’s 830,000-barrel capacity would have become operational in 2012, and Northern Gateway would already be under construction. Instead, tar sands oil has run into a bottleneck, with developers increasingly anxious to find outlets. Shipping constraints and higher costs led oil companies to suspend three major tar sands projects this year, and many other companies reduced capital expenditures. Oil Change International, a clean-energy advocacy group, estimates that between 2010 and 2013, tar sands developers lost $30.9 billion because of the loss of markets for their oil and competition from lower-priced light crude. Of that figure, Oil Change International claims, more than half can be directly attributed to the success of anti-pipeline campaigns.

All this happened before tar sands developers received an even bigger blow: the collapse in the last six months of world oil prices. Tar sands crude requires an assortment of energy-intensive processes that make it among the most expensive of the world’s crudes to produce. Operations were already slowing when oil cost more than $90 a barrel, but this week its price fell below $50, far below the tar sands projects’ break-even point. If oil prices stay low, Keystone XL loses all financial rationale.

The news for tar sands developers could get worse still. While the arrival of “peak oil” — the date at which global oil supplies begin to decline — has been indefinitely postponed by the advent of hydraulic fracturing, the United States reached peak oildemand in 2005. The decline in demand in the U.S. is likely to continue for a range of reasons. Electric cars and hybrids are becoming more popular, and gasoline cars are using fuel more efficiently. Americans are tapping more and more renewable sources of power such as wind and solar. Baby boomers, formerly enthusiastic car drivers, are retiring, and young people are driving far less.

Most ominous for tar sands producers, the announcement in November of an agreement on cutting carbon emissions between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping has raised hopes that a forceful international climate treaty can at last be negotiated, perhaps at the Paris climate change conference in December 2015. If that happens, tar sands developers presumably would try to gallop toward the finish line, seeking to extract a maximum amount of crude before the pact goes into effect.

Instead of becoming the beating heart of a North American energy superpower, the tar sands now stand poised to become a different kind of symbol. Whereas once they stood for oil production at its most excessive (with high rates of greenhouse gas emissions, massive water and soil pollution, and energy inefficiency), that notion is being turned inside out: The tar sands soon may represent a pioneering victory in combating climate change, on the first major battlefield where concern over the globe’s future overrode oil revenues.

The struggle has already taught climate change campaigners a lesson. They have tried for a couple of decades to persuade governments to agree to substantial percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by a certain remote date, without much success. The goals were vital but intangible and abstract, not exactly fodder for rallying cries. But people can envision a piece of infrastructure like a pipeline and the dangers it poses along its route. In fact, the core of opposition to the tar sands pipelines hasn’t revolved around climate change, but rather fear of leaks and their impacts on soil, waterways, and aquifers.

“Instead of big groups of scientists going to local communities and saying, ‘You should be worried about climate change,’ farmers in Nebraska and First Nations fishermen in northern British Columbia started their own campaigns,” Tzeporah Berman, a prominent Canadian environmental strategist, told me. “What we’re seeing is a new climate movement with frontline communities at the forefront. That’s much stronger, with broader.

Despite indications it will pass in Congress, Obama will take out his rarely used veto pen.

The White House confirmed today that President Obama will veto Congressional legislation designed to greenlight construction of the Keystone XLpipeline, the contentious project first proposed six years ago to carry more than 800,000 barrels per day of Canadian oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries and export facilities along the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill, proposed by Republican Senator John Hoeven from North Dakota and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, will be debated in a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday with the panel set to vote on the project Thursday.

“For us to continue to produce more energy and compete in the global market we need more pipelines to move crude at the lowest cost and in the safest, most environmentally friendly way,” Hoeven said in a recent press conference. “That means that pipelines like the Keystone XL are in the vital national interest of our country.”

According to Danielle Droitsch, director of the Canada Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Obama “made the right call.”

“What’s needed now is for him to kill the dirty tar sands pipeline outright,” she said in a statement.

Droitsch said the president is clearly focused on the question of national interest.

“On principle, the president is right to put the national interest first. It’s not the role of Congress to short-circuit the legitimate process of presidential review designed to ensure the best outcome for the country.”

She added Keystone XL “would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America so most of it could be shipped overseas. It’s not a plan to help our country. It’s about big profits for big oil – and big pollution for the rest of us.”

“The first thing Canadians should recognize about the new world order for oil prices is that – contrary to what we’re being told by our federal government – the economy is no longer in dire need of any new pipelines. For that matter, it can live without the new rail terminals being built to move oil as well. Yesterday’s transportation bottlenecks aren’t relevant in today’s marketplace.

At current prices there won’t be any massive expansion of oil sands production because those projects, which would produce some of the world’s most expensive crude, no longer make economic sense.”

Bill co-sponsor Joe Manchin – one of the few Democrats to support the pipeline – said he is encouraged by the fact that the Keystone XL bill is one of the first pieces of legislation this year.

“We have everything to gain by building this pipeline, especially since it would help create thousands of jobs right here at home and limit our dependence on foreign oil,” he said.

Yet to the White House, the move is symbolic of potential discord with the Republican-led Congress.

“Congressional Republicans are well aware of the position of this administration, which is that we believe clearly that this administrative process is the one that should determine the viability of this project and that is a long held view,” White House press secretary Earnest said.

“So it may raise questions about the willingness of Republicans to actually cooperate with this administration when you consider that the very first bill that is introduced in U.S. Senate is one that Republicans know the president opposes,” he added.

According to The Hill, Hoeven and Manchin already have a plan to push passage of the pipeline legislation later in the year, despite Obama’s veto.

Despite indications it will pass in Congress, Obama will take out his rarely used veto pen.

The White House confirmed today that President Obama will veto Congressional legislation designed to greenlight construction of the Keystone XLpipeline, the contentious project first proposed six years ago to carry more than 800,000 barrels per day of Canadian oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries and export facilities along the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill, proposed by Republican Senator John Hoeven from North Dakota and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, will be debated in a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday with the panel set to vote on the project Thursday.

“For us to continue to produce more energy and compete in the global market we need more pipelines to move crude at the lowest cost and in the safest, most environmentally friendly way,” Hoeven said in a recent press conference. “That means that pipelines like the Keystone XL are in the vital national interest of our country.”

According to Danielle Droitsch, director of the Canada Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Obama “made the right call.”

“What’s needed now is for him to kill the dirty tar sands pipeline outright,” she said in a statement.

Droitsch said the president is clearly focused on the question of national interest.

“On principle, the president is right to put the national interest first. It’s not the role of Congress to short-circuit the legitimate process of presidential review designed to ensure the best outcome for the country.”

She added Keystone XL “would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America so most of it could be shipped overseas. It’s not a plan to help our country. It’s about big profits for big oil – and big pollution for the rest of us.”

“The first thing Canadians should recognize about the new world order for oil prices is that – contrary to what we’re being told by our federal government – the economy is no longer in dire need of any new pipelines. For that matter, it can live without the new rail terminals being built to move oil as well. Yesterday’s transportation bottlenecks aren’t relevant in today’s marketplace.

At current prices there won’t be any massive expansion of oil sands production because those projects, which would produce some of the world’s most expensive crude, no longer make economic sense.”

Bill co-sponsor Joe Manchin – one of the few Democrats to support the pipeline – said he is encouraged by the fact that the Keystone XL bill is one of the first pieces of legislation this year.

“We have everything to gain by building this pipeline, especially since it would help create thousands of jobs right here at home and limit our dependence on foreign oil,” he said.

Yet to the White House, the move is symbolic of potential discord with the Republican-led Congress.

“Congressional Republicans are well aware of the position of this administration, which is that we believe clearly that this administrative process is the one that should determine the viability of this project and that is a long held view,” White House press secretary Earnest said.

“So it may raise questions about the willingness of Republicans to actually cooperate with this administration when you consider that the very first bill that is introduced in U.S. Senate is one that Republicans know the president opposes,” he added.

According to The Hill, Hoeven and Manchin already have a plan to push passage of the pipeline legislation later in the year, despite Obama’s veto.

]]>
http://www.alternet.org/economy/97-fracking-now-operating-loss-current-oil-pricesEnergy Crash — 97% of Fracking Now Operating at a Loss at Current Oil Priceshttp://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/82664028/0/alternet_fracking~Energy-Crash-%e2%80%94-of-Fracking-Now-Operating-at-a-Loss-at-Current-Oil-Prices

West Texas Intermediate reached a 2014 peak of $107.73 in June before dropping as low as $49.77 today on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The grade settled at $50.04 a barrel. That’s below the break-even price for 37 of 38 U.S. shale oilfields, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Shale oil fracking and Canadian tar sand is some of the most expensive (and dirty) oil production on the planet, while conventional Persian Gulf oil is the cheapest to produce. Warren Henry, the spokesman for Continental, one of the frackers who have been spending money faster than they can make it, says that current oil prices are “not a sustainable long-term trend.” However, Bob Tippee, Editor of Oil & Gas Journal, has a different take.

"The Saudis have no incentive to lower supply to defend the price of crude oil, that is kind of a given right now, so the Saudis are not going to rescue the market," said Bob Tippee, Editor of Oil & Gas Journal.

It won't come from other major producers either. Both Russia and Iraq have boosted oil production to their highest levels in decades. So it seems certain that low oil prices are here to stay. At least for now.And that's bad for the oil patches of red states like Texas and North Dakota.

The slump may push Texas into a “painful regional recession,” Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, wrote in a Dec. 18 report. Texas pumps 37 percent of U.S. oil output, EIA data show. The oil and gas industry accounts for 11 percent of the state’s economy, according to Feroli. The effects may extend to housing and other businesses, he wrote.

The majority of Texas energy production is still by conventional means. North Dakota, on the other hand, relies heavily on fracking, so they are looking at hard times. Already oil rigs are being shut down at the fastest pace in six years.

“At $50 oil, half the U.S. rig count is at risk,” R.T. Dukes, an upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd., said by telephone from Houston. “What happened in the last quarter foreshadows what’s going to be a tough year for operators. It’s looking worse and worse by the day.”

Employment in the support services for oil and gas operations has risen 70% since mid-2009. Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen 34% over the same time period.

The thing to remember is that most job creation in the fracking industry comes up-front, so job losses will hit long before production falls.

The most labor-intensive aspect of the oil-field industry is the construction and completion process for new wells, which requires the bulk of investment and provides the most income to the local economy. He predicts ramifications of the oil slide to show up in three to six months, because companies will complete works in progress according to contract.

The price began crashing a couple months ago so the layoffs notices will really pick up on the oil patches any day. The Dallas Federal Reserve projects Texas will lose 125,000 jobs by the middle of this year.

This slowdown is already projected to effect the state budgets of Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Alaska.

Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesn't have an immediate effect. That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats.First of all, there is no way of knowing when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now. The other caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling, shale oil taps out very quickly. That is simple geology.

the average decline of the world's conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil field is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in the first year. Shale gas wells face similarly swift depletion rates, so drillers need to keep plumbing new wells to make up for the shortfall at those that have gone anemic.

The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become more expensive to drill, “a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price.”

With the current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped producing enough oil for their business model. This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional oil production can wait out the frackers.

Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking industry, and that is high-yield debt.

“Anything that becomes a mania—it ends badly,” said Tim Gramatovich, who helps manage more than $800 million as chief investment officer of Santa Barbara, California-based Peritus Asset Management. “And this is a mania.” “It’s been super cheap” for energy companies to obtain financing over the past five years, said Brian Gibbons, a senior analyst for oil and gas at CreditSights in New York. Now,companies with ratings of B or below are “virtually shut out of the market” and will have to “rely on a combination of asset sales” and their credit lines, he said.

Far too many fracking companies have managed to stay in business by virtue of cheap credit. Being shut out of the bond market for these companies has the same effect as a bullet in the head. Gary C. Evans, chief executive officer of Magnum Hunter Resources Corp., calculates that the funding squeeze for the frackers will hit in March or April.

West Texas Intermediate reached a 2014 peak of $107.73 in June before dropping as low as $49.77 today on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The grade settled at $50.04 a barrel. That’s below the break-even price for 37 of 38 U.S. shale oilfields, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Shale oil fracking and Canadian tar sand is some of the most expensive (and dirty) oil production on the planet, while conventional Persian Gulf oil is the cheapest to produce.
Warren Henry, the spokesman for Continental, one of the frackers who have been spending money faster than they can make it, says that current oil prices are “not a sustainable long-term trend.”
However, Bob Tippee, Editor of Oil & Gas Journal, has a different take.

"The Saudis have no incentive to lower supply to defend the price of crude oil, that is kind of a given right now, so the Saudis are not going to rescue the market," said Bob Tippee, Editor of Oil & Gas Journal.

It won't come from other major producers either. Both Russia and Iraq have boosted oil production to their highest levels in decades.
So it seems certain that low oil prices are here to stay. At least for now.
And that's bad for the oil patches of red states like Texas and North Dakota.

The slump may push Texas into a “painful regional recession,” Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, wrote in a Dec. 18 report.
Texas pumps 37 percent of U.S. oil output, EIA data show. The oil and gas industry accounts for 11 percent of the state’s economy, according to Feroli. The effects may extend to housing and other businesses, he wrote.

The majority of Texas energy production is still by conventional means. North Dakota, on the other hand, relies heavily on fracking, so they are looking at hard times.
Already oil rigs are being shut down at the fastest pace in six years.

“At $50 oil, half the U.S. rig count is at risk,” R.T. Dukes, an upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd., said by telephone from Houston. “What happened in the last quarter foreshadows what’s going to be a tough year for operators. It’s looking worse and worse by the day.”

Employment in the support services for oil and gas operations has risen 70% since mid-2009. Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen 34% over the same time period.

The thing to remember is that most job creation in the fracking industry comes up-front, so job losses will hit long before production falls.

The most labor-intensive aspect of the oil-field industry is the construction and completion process for new wells, which requires the bulk of investment and provides the most income to the local economy.
He predicts ramifications of the oil slide to show up in three to six months, because companies will complete works in progress according to contract.

The price began crashing a couple months ago so the layoffs notices will really pick up on the oil patches any day.
The Dallas Federal Reserve projects Texas will lose 125,000 jobs by the middle of this year.

This slowdown is already projected to effect the state budgets of Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Alaska.

Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesn't have an immediate effect.
That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats.
First of all, there is no way of knowing when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now.
The other caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling, shale oil taps out very quickly. That is simple geology.

the average decline of the world's conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil field is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in the first year.
Shale gas wells face similarly swift depletion rates, so drillers need to keep plumbing new wells to make up for the shortfall at those that have gone anemic.

The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become more expensive to drill, “a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price.”

With the current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped producing enough oil for their business model.
This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional oil production can wait out the frackers.

Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking industry, and that is high-yield debt.

“Anything that becomes a mania—it ends badly,” said Tim Gramatovich, who helps manage more than $800 million as chief investment officer of Santa Barbara, California-based Peritus Asset Management. “And this is a mania.”
“It’s been super cheap” for energy companies to obtain financing over the past five years, said Brian Gibbons, a senior analyst for oil and gas at CreditSights in New York. Now,companies with ratings of B or below are “virtually shut out of the market” and will have to “rely on a combination of asset sales” and their credit lines, he said.

Far too many fracking companies have managed to stay in business by virtue of cheap credit. Being shut out of the bond market for these companies has the same effect as a bullet in the head.
Gary C. Evans, chief executive officer of Magnum Hunter Resources Corp., calculates that the funding squeeze for the frackers will hit in March or April.

]]>
]]>
http://www.alternet.org/environment/dangerous-bomb-trains-return-town-was-devastated-oneDangerous Bomb Trains Return to the Town That Was Devastated By Onehttp://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/82401983/0/alternet_fracking~Dangerous-Bomb-Trains-Return-to-the-Town-That-Was-Devastated-By-One

Oil-by-rail again runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec, the scene of a horrific explosion.

According to the Portland Press Herald, that was the assessment of the future by Ryan Ratledge, the current chief operating officer for Central Maine and Quebec Railway, the railroad that runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

Central Maine and Quebec Railway is the new name of the railroad that was operating the train that caused the oil train disaster in Lac Megantic in July 2013 that resulted in the death of 47 people. As DeSmogBlogreported previously, cost cutting measures by the railroad were directly linked to the cause of the accident.

After the accident, the railway declared bankruptcy and the assets were purchased by Fortress Investment Group, which currently manages over $66 billion in assets.

The oil trains will start rolling through downtown Lac-Megantic again by 2016. Other “dangerous goods” are already being shipped on the railway.

While many see the tragedy in Lac-Megantic as a dire warning about what happens when the lust for profit goes unregulated with no regard for the environment or safety, for the multi-billion-dollar hedge fund Fortress, it is just another success story. Every crisis is an opportunity. Disaster capitalism works.

Meanwhile in Lac-Megantic, the future isn’t quite so bright. The oil that spilled there contaminated much of downtown. And while the train tracks have been rebuilt, downtown has not.

The reopening of the Musi-Cafe, where many of the victims of the accident were that night, was announced this month. But the cafe isn’t reopening in the downtown area where it had been located. While the cafe was being built this year in a new commercial strip mall development above the town where businesses have relocated, the cafe’s original location was still a fenced-off work site where contaminated soil was being removed by the truck load.

And while the Musi-Cafe is opening, owner Yannick Gagne is still very much impacted by what happened on July 6, 2013. Gagne told the International Business Times that there are still some people who will look away from him when they see him on the street. “I know it's normal, but it puts a lot of pressure … I'm not the devil, I didn't put the train inside the Musi-Café.”

He also didn’t put the oil into the Chaudiere River, a beautiful river that flows out of Lac-Megantic and is popular with fisherman. This year, on the one-year anniversary of the accident, the people of Lac Megantic released 5,000 new trout into the lake, but cleaning up oil spills takes more than just putting new fish in the water.

“No one comes down here anymore, and why would they?” St-Pierre told the Montreal Gazette. “Last year I led tourists on fishing trips all the time and that hasn’t happened yet this year. People still fish the lake but the river is pretty dead.”

As the town recovers, the lawsuits also continue. The deadline for filings in the bankruptcy case is January 15, 2015. The goal was to get $500 million in compensation. So far the expected amount is $200 million.

So the oil trains will be back in Lac-Megantic by 2016 running on the same dangerous route as always. Residents had proposed rerouting the tracks around the town but that would have cost Fortress Investment Group money they weren’t willing to spend.

And there isn’t much hope for a town the size of Lac-Megantic to make this happen when the mayor of Toronto is not having any luck keeping the oil trains out of his major city.

There were two critical safety items that would have avoided or greatly reduced the damage in Lac-Megantic, from the train and oil that originated in the U.S.—properly securing the train so it didn’t roll down the hill into town, and not having explosive oil in the tank cars.

That means it will not be part of the new regulations that are supposed to be out on January 15. It also means that lobbyists will be able to schedule private meetings with the regulators at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the next several months to influence any final new regulations on securing trains, just like they did this year when they worked against any new oil-by-rail regulations.

After the Lac-Megantic disaster tests showed that the oil—which was from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota—was as explosive as gasoline, something that is not true about most crude oils but that is a characteristic of oil obtained by fracking tight shale formations like the Bakken. And that explained why downtown Lac-Megantic was consumed by explosions and fire.

Those hopes were dashed last month when North Dakota regulators released new “standards” allowing oil significantly more volatile and dangerous than the oil involved in the Lac-Megantic accident.

So when the oil trains return to Lac-Megantic in 2016, they can still carry the same dangerous oil they did in 2013—in the same unsafe rail cars. No executives of any rail or oil corporation will have been charged with any wrongdoing.

Just as BP is currently promoting that it’s “back to work in the Gulf of Mexico”, the future is indeed bright for the oil and rail companies who will be running oil trains through Lac-Megantic.

The same can’t be said for the 25 million people who, like the people of Lac-Megantic, continue to live in the blast zones of the bomb trains.

According to the Portland Press Herald, that was the assessment of the future by Ryan Ratledge, the current chief operating officer for Central Maine and Quebec Railway, the railroad that runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

Central Maine and Quebec Railway is the new name of the railroad that was operating the train that caused the oil train disaster in Lac Megantic in July 2013 that resulted in the death of 47 people. As DeSmogBlogreported previously, cost cutting measures by the railroad were directly linked to the cause of the accident.

After the accident, the railway declared bankruptcy and the assets were purchased by Fortress Investment Group, which currently manages over $66 billion in assets.

The oil trains will start rolling through downtown Lac-Megantic again by 2016. Other “dangerous goods” are already being shipped on the railway.

While many see the tragedy in Lac-Megantic as a dire warning about what happens when the lust for profit goes unregulated with no regard for the environment or safety, for the multi-billion-dollar hedge fund Fortress, it is just another success story. Every crisis is an opportunity. Disaster capitalism works.

Meanwhile in Lac-Megantic, the future isn’t quite so bright. The oil that spilled there contaminated much of downtown. And while the train tracks have been rebuilt, downtown has not.

The reopening of the Musi-Cafe, where many of the victims of the accident were that night, was announced this month. But the cafe isn’t reopening in the downtown area where it had been located. While the cafe was being built this year in a new commercial strip mall development above the town where businesses have relocated, the cafe’s original location was still a fenced-off work site where contaminated soil was being removed by the truck load.

And while the Musi-Cafe is opening, owner Yannick Gagne is still very much impacted by what happened on July 6, 2013. Gagne told the International Business Times that there are still some people who will look away from him when they see him on the street. “I know it's normal, but it puts a lot of pressure … I'm not the devil, I didn't put the train inside the Musi-Café.”

He also didn’t put the oil into the Chaudiere River, a beautiful river that flows out of Lac-Megantic and is popular with fisherman. This year, on the one-year anniversary of the accident, the people of Lac Megantic released 5,000 new trout into the lake, but cleaning up oil spills takes more than just putting new fish in the water.

“No one comes down here anymore, and why would they?” St-Pierre told the Montreal Gazette. “Last year I led tourists on fishing trips all the time and that hasn’t happened yet this year. People still fish the lake but the river is pretty dead.”

As the town recovers, the lawsuits also continue. The deadline for filings in the bankruptcy case is January 15, 2015. The goal was to get $500 million in compensation. So far the expected amount is $200 million.

So the oil trains will be back in Lac-Megantic by 2016 running on the same dangerous route as always. Residents had proposed rerouting the tracks around the town but that would have cost Fortress Investment Group money they weren’t willing to spend.

And there isn’t much hope for a town the size of Lac-Megantic to make this happen when the mayor of Toronto is not having any luck keeping the oil trains out of his major city.

There were two critical safety items that would have avoided or greatly reduced the damage in Lac-Megantic, from the train and oil that originated in the U.S.—properly securing the train so it didn’t roll down the hill into town, and not having explosive oil in the tank cars.

That means it will not be part of the new regulations that are supposed to be out on January 15. It also means that lobbyists will be able to schedule private meetings with the regulators at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the next several months to influence any final new regulations on securing trains, just like they did this year when they worked against any new oil-by-rail regulations.

After the Lac-Megantic disaster tests showed that the oil—which was from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota—was as explosive as gasoline, something that is not true about most crude oils but that is a characteristic of oil obtained by fracking tight shale formations like the Bakken. And that explained why downtown Lac-Megantic was consumed by explosions and fire.

Those hopes were dashed last month when North Dakota regulators released new “standards” allowing oil significantly more volatile and dangerous than the oil involved in the Lac-Megantic accident.

So when the oil trains return to Lac-Megantic in 2016, they can still carry the same dangerous oil they did in 2013—in the same unsafe rail cars. No executives of any rail or oil corporation will have been charged with any wrongdoing.

Just as BP is currently promoting that it’s “back to work in the Gulf of Mexico”, the future is indeed bright for the oil and rail companies who will be running oil trains through Lac-Megantic.

The same can’t be said for the 25 million people who, like the people of Lac-Megantic, continue to live in the blast zones of the bomb trains.

]]>
]]>
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/calls-fracking-moratorium-paTime to Stop Pennsylvania Fracking: Ban in New York Creates New Momentum http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/81879306/0/alternet_fracking~Time-to-Stop-Pennsylvania-Fracking-Ban-in-New-York-Creates-New-Momentum

Momentum builds in the Keystone State in the wake of its neighbor's surprise announcement.

Last week, New York Governor Cuomo announced that his state would ban fracking, due in large part to concerns about impacts on public health. But right across the border in Pennsylvania, one of the fastest-moving shale booms in the country still proceeds at breakneck speed.

While Governor-elect Tom Wolf campaigned on promises to tax shale gas extraction, evidence continued to grow that Pennsylvania has struggled to police the drilling industry or even keep tabs on its activities. A scathing report issued in July by State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale found that record-keeping was “egregiously poor,” and environmental regulators do “not have the infrastructure in place to meet the continuing demands placed upon the agency by expanded shale gas development.”

For the past several years, Pennsylvania has had a history of lax regulation of the shale rush and its impacts on drinking water. For example, in 2011, the state made national headlines for allowing shale wastewater laced with toxic and radioactive materials to be discharged after incomplete treatment into rivers and streams that were not capable of fully diluting the waste, according to internalEPA documents. Even now, toxic waste from the fracking industry is only tracked via industry self-reporting, which a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette investigation found has led to major gaps in tracking and reporting.

“I think there is a strong feeling in Pennsylvania that what happened in New York is in large part because of the demonstrated damage caused by gas production here,” said Myron Arnowitt, State Director of Clean Water Action.

“It appears that the leadership in New York has been more responsive to what has been happening to Pennsylvanians than the leadership in Pennsylvania.”

Right from the start of the shale rush, the two states took different tacks, with New York maintaining a temporary moratorium until the state understood the impacts of shale gas extraction methods and Pennsylvania allowing drilling to begin before regulations were put in place.

Some environmental advocates are calling for Pennsylvania to undertake a similar review to New York's.

“A state-wide assessment in Pennsylvania has never been done,” said Mr. Arnowitt. “Again, with a new governor there is an opportunity for some real examination of the facts on the ground here. Even though these potential studies in PA would be after gas production started, it would definitely be better late than never.”

There are also calls for local and regional authorities to intensify their look at shale gas extraction.

“In Pennsylvania, for example, we have been pushing the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to conduct their own cumulative impact study of the effects of fracking on the Susquehanna watershed (which covers New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland including the Chesapeake Bay),” said Mr. Arnowitt. “Hopefully New York’s decision will help move SRBC to consider the need for an overall look at the impacts.”

Tom Wolf, the incoming governor, did not respond to requests for comment from DeSmog as of press time. “Governor-elect Wolf’s priority is to ensure that Pennsylvania is an energy leader with all Pennsylvanians sharing in the prosperity,” Jeff Sheridan, press secretary for Wolf's transition team, told PoliticsPA. “Governor-elect Wolf opposes a ban, and he will work hard to make sure the process is safe.”

Wolf will likely face tough questions in light of New York's review of the research, which casts doubt on the feasibility of ensuring that fracking is safe.

“Would I live in a community with [fracking] based on the facts I have now? Would I let my child play in the school field nearby, or my family drink the water from the tap or grow their vegetables in the soil?” said Howard Zucker, New York's acting Health Department comissioner, as he announced the ban. “After looking at a plethora of reports … my answer is no.”

The New York report focused on the difficulty of protecting against a broad range of risks and uncertainties associated with drilling, its cautious wording casting doubt on claims that risks to public health from the process could be effectively managed.

“As with most complex human activities in modern societies, absolute scientific certainty regarding the relative contributions of positive and negative impacts ofHVHF on public health is unlikely to ever be attained,” the report says.

“In this instance, however, the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health.”

Studies from Pennsylvania were cited dozens of times in New York's review, on issues ranging from air pollution to traffic accidents to emerging health impacts in communities where fracking takes place.

“Given what the New York State Department of Health (NYDOH) has concluded, that 'the risks are too great' to allow fracking, we should ask for a point-by-point response to the NYDOH health impact analysis from Pennsylvania's Gov-elect Tom Wolf,” said Stephen Cleghorn, owner of Paradise Gardens and Farm and former Advisory Council Member for Stop the Frack Attack.

“If the public health risks are too great in NY, then why are they not too great inPA?”

In some ways, the shale rush in Pennsylvania may have served to bear out the fears of New Yorkers.

“Although the natural gas industry will blame environmentalists and activists for the fracking ban in New York, the reality is that the industry itself bears a huge share of the responsibility,” said former Pennsylvania State Representative Jesse White, who represented one of the most heavily drilled counties in the state.

“New York had the benefit of watching everything unfold in Pennsylvania over the past decade before making any decisions about fracking,” he said, “and what should have been a golden opportunity for the drilling industry to brightly shine has instead taken on the distinct look and stench of a dumpster fire.”

New Yorkers have also looked across the border and seen that the economic benefits hoped for in Pennsylvania have failed to measure up to the boasts of drilling advocates.

“Neither job creation nor potential gas production are accurately reported by the industry and sadly, many of our elected leaders have been perpetuating inaccuracies,” economist Janette Barth wrote in a Dec. 4 letter to Governor Cuomo. “While the Governor of Pennsylvania has stated that 200,000 jobs have been created by gas development in Pennsylvania, detailed analysis by the unbiased Marcellus Shale Research Collaborative shows only one-tenth that number of jobs created.”

In large part, the New York State Department of Health report centered on the lack of evidence surrounding fracking's impacts, and the industry's inability to demonstrate that the process would be done safely.

This uncertainty is promoted by the shale industry's unwillingness to share information for scientific review and its use of sealed settlements when lawsuits over contamination are filed.

“The lack of transparency by both the gas industry and the PA DEP, coupled with the continued use of dangerous wastewater impoundments and a refusal to disclose the chemicals used in frac fluid, only serve to delay the inevitable public debate about the real impacts of fracking,” said Rep. White. “The refusal to have an honest discussion about the impacts of drilling could very well end up being more dangerous than any real or perceived impacts from drilling itself.”

“It’s like being so afraid of talking about the flu that nobody gets a flu shot,” he added, “you’re making a problem much worse by pretending it doesn’t exist.”

Despite the lack of transparency, a growing number of Pennsylvanians see downsides to drilling. Nicholas Davitt, of the grassroots group Encouraging the Development of a Green Economy (E.D.G.E.) said that two-thirds of Democrats support a statewide moratorium on fracking and that it is the official platform of the State Democratic party.

“We’ve won moratoriums on fracking in the Delaware River Watershed and in Dimock. We’ve banned fracking in Pittsburgh,” he said. “We need to halt it statewide to ensure a healthy and robust economic future for Pennsylvania and the region.”

Many environmentalists hoped that momentum for grassroots activism would continue to build in the wake of the surprise announcement.

“This victory in New York proves that when people are committed, vocal, and earnest in their pursuit of the truth there is no deep pocket industry chief, lobbyist or politician that can stop them,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.

“There were many along the way who said we could not secure a moratorium on shale gas extraction in the Delaware River watershed — we did. There were many along the way who said we could not secure a ban on fracking in New York — today we, as a community, have,” she said.

“There are those who say we cannot stop the drilling happening in Pennsylvania or other states across the nation — I believe we will and today’s victory in New York supports that.”

Momentum builds in the Keystone State in the wake of its neighbor's surprise announcement.

Last week, New York Governor Cuomo announced that his state would ban fracking, due in large part to concerns about impacts on public health. But right across the border in Pennsylvania, one of the fastest-moving shale booms in the country still proceeds at breakneck speed.

While Governor-elect Tom Wolf campaigned on promises to tax shale gas extraction, evidence continued to grow that Pennsylvania has struggled to police the drilling industry or even keep tabs on its activities. A scathing report issued in July by State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale found that record-keeping was “egregiously poor,” and environmental regulators do “not have the infrastructure in place to meet the continuing demands placed upon the agency by expanded shale gas development.”

For the past several years, Pennsylvania has had a history of lax regulation of the shale rush and its impacts on drinking water. For example, in 2011, the state made national headlines for allowing shale wastewater laced with toxic and radioactive materials to be discharged after incomplete treatment into rivers and streams that were not capable of fully diluting the waste, according to internalEPA documents. Even now, toxic waste from the fracking industry is only tracked via industry self-reporting, which a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette investigation found has led to major gaps in tracking and reporting.

“I think there is a strong feeling in Pennsylvania that what happened in New York is in large part because of the demonstrated damage caused by gas production here,” said Myron Arnowitt, State Director of Clean Water Action.

“It appears that the leadership in New York has been more responsive to what has been happening to Pennsylvanians than the leadership in Pennsylvania.”

Right from the start of the shale rush, the two states took different tacks, with New York maintaining a temporary moratorium until the state understood the impacts of shale gas extraction methods and Pennsylvania allowing drilling to begin before regulations were put in place.

Some environmental advocates are calling for Pennsylvania to undertake a similar review to New York's.

“A state-wide assessment in Pennsylvania has never been done,” said Mr. Arnowitt. “Again, with a new governor there is an opportunity for some real examination of the facts on the ground here. Even though these potential studies in PA would be after gas production started, it would definitely be better late than never.”

There are also calls for local and regional authorities to intensify their look at shale gas extraction.

“In Pennsylvania, for example, we have been pushing the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to conduct their own cumulative impact study of the effects of fracking on the Susquehanna watershed (which covers New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland including the Chesapeake Bay),” said Mr. Arnowitt. “Hopefully New York’s decision will help move SRBC to consider the need for an overall look at the impacts.”

Tom Wolf, the incoming governor, did not respond to requests for comment from DeSmog as of press time. “Governor-elect Wolf’s priority is to ensure that Pennsylvania is an energy leader with all Pennsylvanians sharing in the prosperity,” Jeff Sheridan, press secretary for Wolf's transition team, told PoliticsPA. “Governor-elect Wolf opposes a ban, and he will work hard to make sure the process is safe.”

Wolf will likely face tough questions in light of New York's review of the research, which casts doubt on the feasibility of ensuring that fracking is safe.

“Would I live in a community with [fracking] based on the facts I have now? Would I let my child play in the school field nearby, or my family drink the water from the tap or grow their vegetables in the soil?” said Howard Zucker, New York's acting Health Department comissioner, as he announced the ban. “After looking at a plethora of reports … my answer is no.”

The New York report focused on the difficulty of protecting against a broad range of risks and uncertainties associated with drilling, its cautious wording casting doubt on claims that risks to public health from the process could be effectively managed.

“As with most complex human activities in modern societies, absolute scientific certainty regarding the relative contributions of positive and negative impacts ofHVHF on public health is unlikely to ever be attained,” the report says.

“In this instance, however, the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health.”

Studies from Pennsylvania were cited dozens of times in New York's review, on issues ranging from air pollution to traffic accidents to emerging health impacts in communities where fracking takes place.

“Given what the New York State Department of Health (NYDOH) has concluded, that 'the risks are too great' to allow fracking, we should ask for a point-by-point response to the NYDOH health impact analysis from Pennsylvania's Gov-elect Tom Wolf,” said Stephen Cleghorn, owner of Paradise Gardens and Farm and former Advisory Council Member for Stop the Frack Attack.

“If the public health risks are too great in NY, then why are they not too great inPA?”

In some ways, the shale rush in Pennsylvania may have served to bear out the fears of New Yorkers.

“Although the natural gas industry will blame environmentalists and activists for the fracking ban in New York, the reality is that the industry itself bears a huge share of the responsibility,” said former Pennsylvania State Representative Jesse White, who represented one of the most heavily drilled counties in the state.

“New York had the benefit of watching everything unfold in Pennsylvania over the past decade before making any decisions about fracking,” he said, “and what should have been a golden opportunity for the drilling industry to brightly shine has instead taken on the distinct look and stench of a dumpster fire.”

New Yorkers have also looked across the border and seen that the economic benefits hoped for in Pennsylvania have failed to measure up to the boasts of drilling advocates.

“Neither job creation nor potential gas production are accurately reported by the industry and sadly, many of our elected leaders have been perpetuating inaccuracies,” economist Janette Barth wrote in a Dec. 4 letter to Governor Cuomo. “While the Governor of Pennsylvania has stated that 200,000 jobs have been created by gas development in Pennsylvania, detailed analysis by the unbiased Marcellus Shale Research Collaborative shows only one-tenth that number of jobs created.”

In large part, the New York State Department of Health report centered on the lack of evidence surrounding fracking's impacts, and the industry's inability to demonstrate that the process would be done safely.

This uncertainty is promoted by the shale industry's unwillingness to share information for scientific review and its use of sealed settlements when lawsuits over contamination are filed.

“The lack of transparency by both the gas industry and the PA DEP, coupled with the continued use of dangerous wastewater impoundments and a refusal to disclose the chemicals used in frac fluid, only serve to delay the inevitable public debate about the real impacts of fracking,” said Rep. White. “The refusal to have an honest discussion about the impacts of drilling could very well end up being more dangerous than any real or perceived impacts from drilling itself.”

“It’s like being so afraid of talking about the flu that nobody gets a flu shot,” he added, “you’re making a problem much worse by pretending it doesn’t exist.”

Despite the lack of transparency, a growing number of Pennsylvanians see downsides to drilling. Nicholas Davitt, of the grassroots group Encouraging the Development of a Green Economy (E.D.G.E.) said that two-thirds of Democrats support a statewide moratorium on fracking and that it is the official platform of the State Democratic party.

“We’ve won moratoriums on fracking in the Delaware River Watershed and in Dimock. We’ve banned fracking in Pittsburgh,” he said. “We need to halt it statewide to ensure a healthy and robust economic future for Pennsylvania and the region.”

Many environmentalists hoped that momentum for grassroots activism would continue to build in the wake of the surprise announcement.

“This victory in New York proves that when people are committed, vocal, and earnest in their pursuit of the truth there is no deep pocket industry chief, lobbyist or politician that can stop them,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.

“There were many along the way who said we could not secure a moratorium on shale gas extraction in the Delaware River watershed — we did. There were many along the way who said we could not secure a ban on fracking in New York — today we, as a community, have,” she said.

“There are those who say we cannot stop the drilling happening in Pennsylvania or other states across the nation — I believe we will and today’s victory in New York supports that.”

]]>
]]>
http://www.alternet.org/environment/top-environmental-stories-201410 Most Important Environmental Stories of 2014http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/81646173/0/alternet_fracking~Most-Important-Environmental-Stories-of

The calendar is about to flip over once again, meaning it’s time for the obligatory roundup of the most important environmental stories of the past year.

This list is mostly subjective—my own personal picks, filtered through my own lens. But I did reach out to a several dozen environmental activists and thinkers to tap into the wisdom of the crowd. I asked folks to give me their suggestions not necessarily for the “biggest” news as measured by headlines or page views or likes, but for the most important stories. That is, happenings likely to have an impact on ecosystems, politics, economy and culture beyond 2014.

Not surprisingly, climate change and energy once again dominate the list. But there was also some important news in wildlife conservation and loss, forest protection and politics. Without further ado, here’s my list of the top 10 most important environmentally related stories of 2014.

1. Obama Finally Acts on Power Plant Emissions

President Obama has been a reluctant warrior when it comes to the environment. In his first term he focused on dealing with the biggest financial meltdown and recession in a generation, and then passing his signature health care reform. Now, hamstrung by an oppositional Congress, he’s found that one of the issues on which he can use his executive authority to make real progress is climate change.

In June, Obama’s EPA announced draft rules to slash carbon pollution from power plants, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Once finalized in 2015, the rules are expected to slash power plant emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 (from a 2005 baseline). Fossil fuel interests are attempting to challenge the rules in court, but the administration’s actions rest on solid legal footing. In a landmark case in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that “greenhouse gases fit within the [Clean Air Act’s] capacious definition of an air pollutant.” Here’s how Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune described to me the importance of the rules for a story I wrote for The Daily Beast:

“This is the kind of leadership that we’ve needed for a long time. And the impacts on clear energy will be huge. For the first time we are regulating carbon [dioxide] from arguably the largest source of carbon [dioxide] in the U.S. Unlike every single other pollutant, there has never been any limit on the amount of carbon pollution that can be dumped into the atmosphere. And [now] that will change. And that change is profound—it’s historic.”

2. U.S. and China Agree to Cut Emissions

“But what about China?” That line—usually delivered in the equivalent of a falsetto whine—has long been the fossil fuel industry’s centerpiece complaint about any U.S. actions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In short: U.S. actions don’t matter as long as other major polluters resist making emissions reductions. Here’s a classic bit of concern trolling from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a week after the power plant rules were announced: “The problem is that the climate is a global issue, not just a U.S. one. … To date, China, India and other major emitters have shown no interest in reducing their emissions appreciably.” Well, the chamber lost that talking point (and President Obama chalked up a major diplomatic accomplishment) when, in November, the U.S. and China announced a bi-lateral agreement to tackle climate change. The U.S. promised to cut emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025—a significant boost from Obama’s earlier goals to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020. (Again, these numbers are from a 2005 baseline). For their part, the Chinese pledged that their emissions would peak sometime around 2030, and also that they would generate at least 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by that year.

To be sure, there’s a lot of wiggle room in the non-binding pledge, which merely outlines what the two nations “intend” to do. Still, climate hawks agree that this is a Very Big Deal. Together, China and the U.S. account for about 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emission, so what these giant emitters intend matters. Their joint pledge—however squishy—keeps hope alive that climate negotiators meeting in Paris in December 2015 will be able to craft a global agreement to ratchet down emissions.

3. A Vibrant, Diverse U.S. Climate Movement Emerges

The turnout blew away organizers’ expectations. The constellation of environmental and social justice groups behind the Sept. 21 People’s Climate March in New York City were hoping to enlist at least 100,000 people to participate in their mass mobilization. At least three times as many people turned out for what observers agreed was the largest climate demonstration in history. Let me just say that again: the largest climate demonstration in history.

While the sheer size of the march was clearly important, the diversity of the participants was even more so. There’s a persistent and pernicious assumption among political observers that only white, affluent, college-educated people care about the environment and climate change. The New York demonstration (along with other marches in cities and towns worldwide) revealed what a lie that bit of snark is. Trade unions played a major role in organizing the march, and young people of color from environmental justice organizations led the massive column. In its ethnic, religious, and age diversity, the march looked like New York City. Global leaders couldn’t help but notice. In a speech just a few days later at the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama alluded to the demonstration when he said: “Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call.”

My 2013 list of top environmental stories included the horrific July 2013 oil train explosion in the Quebec town of Lac Megantic that killed 47 people. But it wasn’t until this year that reporters, environmental groups and community organizations caught up to the fact that shipping oil by rail is 1) a growing practice that 2) poses a real threat to public safety and 3) is frightfully under-regulated. The sudden burst of attention was due, in large part, to spate of oil-by-rail accidents in late 2013 and 2014. In November 2013 a train carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude oil from the Bakken fields exploded near Aliceville, Alabama. A month later, a train collision in Casselton, North Dakota spilled 400,000 gallons of petroleum. And then on April 30, 2014, an oil train derailed and caught fire in Lynchburg, Virginia, forcing the evacuation of 300 people. People began waking up to the fact that, as Adam Federman wrote in our Summer issue, “Each day million of gallons of highly combustible oil are moving through major metropolitan areas.”

National newspapers like The New York Times have jumped on the issue, as have environmental groups like Forest Ethics and Earthjustice, which just this month filed a lawsuit to ban the DOT-111 cars that most oil is shipped in. According to a story in Mother Jones, the DOT-111 is like “the Ford Pinto of rail cars.” Federal regulators are belatedly taking action. In July, the US Department of Transportation proposed new rules to govern shipping crude by rail; even Republicans applauded the move. But the issue is far from settled. With the U.S. shale oil boom continuing and pipelines stretched to capacity, oil-by-rail will continue to be a hot topic in 2015.

5. Election #Fail

In Case You Missed It, there was a big election this year. Going into November, environmentalists were cautiously optimistic that big spending byTom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action PAC and the League of Conservation Voters could help make climate change a wedge issue in several key contests. And so tens millions of dollars were spent in Florida, Maine, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa to elect climate champions and/or defeat climate deniers. Unfortunately, things didn’t quite go according to plan.Environmentalists came up with a 2-4 record in the major races in which they picked a fight and spent heavily. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, will now chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Ouch.

But all is not lost. The massive investments made to organize Millennial voters, especially, may pay off in the long run—or as early as 2016. The spending in 2014 might soften the ground for electoral contests to come. On the eve of the election, NextGen released a voter survey showing that younger voters overwhelmingly acknowledge that climate change is real, are dismissive of climate science deniers, and want to see federal action to stem greenhouse gas emissions. As veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said in a conference call explaining the poll results: “This issue matters for Millennials. It is defining issue, and leaders that deny or decline to act will pay a serious price for this politically.”

There were a few bright spots. Foremost among them, the vote by residents of Denton, Texas to ban fracking within the city limits. That’s right—Texas, the birthplace of hydraulic fracturing. According to environmental advocates, the vote in Denton shows that once people get to see fracking close and personal, they don’t much like it, and want to see the practice stopped. The oil and gas industry has filed a lawsuit to overturn the citizens’ vote; Big Green groups are rallying to Denton’s defense. Keep an eye on this one in 2015.

Though not election related, in another surprise win for environmentalists, on Dec. 17 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a statewide ban on fracking following a two-year review that raised “red flags” about its risks to public health. The move is being seen as a major setback for the oil and gas industry.

6. Cargill Promises to Stop Contributing to Deforestation

Probably the most concrete progress to come out of the September UN Climate Summit was the New York Declaration on Forests, a pledge by multinational companies such as Asia Pulp and Paper and Unilever to cut worldwide deforestation in half by 2020 and to eliminate it completely by 2030. One of the signatories was Cargill, the privately held agri-business giant. As CEO Dave MacLennan said at the UN: “We understand that this sort of commitment cannot be limited to just select commodities or supply chains. That’s why Cargill will take practical measures to protect forests across our agricultural supply chains around the world.”

In a word, this is HUGE. From the pantanal of Brazil—where forests are razed for soy plantations and cattle ranches—to the ancient peat forests of Borneo—where trees are cut down to make plant massive palm monocrops—agriculture is the biggest driver of deforestation worldwide. We are humans are, quite literally, eating up wild nature.

Of course, it’s one thing to make a pledge; it’s another thing to keep it. Environmental groups and other public interest watchdogs will have to stay on top of national governments and mega-corporations to ensure they keep their promises. Here’s hoping they do.

7. Wildlife Continues to Decline

It was probably the most depressing single bit of news of the year: In September, the World Wildlife Fund released a report concluding that in the 40 years between 1970 and 2010, the populations of birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by 52 percent. “There is a lot of data in this report and it can seem very overwhelming and complex,” Jon Hoekstra, chief scientist at WWF, said in a statement releasing the findings. “What’s not complicated are the clear trends we’re seeing—39 percent of terrestrial wildlife gone, 39 percent of marine wildlife gone, 76 percent of freshwater wildlife gone—in the past 40 years.”

It’s no coincidence that even as wildlife populations have been cut in half, human numbers have nearly doubled; in 1970 there were 3.7 billion people on Earth, while today there are more than 7.2 billion. If you put those two trends on a graph, you get something resembling the muzzle of a blunderbuss—the prototype of the rifle. And blowing away the rest of nature is exactly what we’re doing.

The dire figures are a reminder that climate change isn’t the only threat to the planet’s health. Our sheer numbers and our relentless appetites are also chewing up the space for other critters, in the process diminishing the wonder and the beauty of Earth.

This isn’t a parochial inclusion just because I happen to live in California. The drought in California—now in its fourth year, and not even close to being resolved by some recent rains—is big news since the Golden State growsnearly half of the U.S.’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and is also the number one dairy state. What happens to California agriculture affects the whole country.

Make no mistake, the drought is climate-related. Or, in the words of scientists at Stanford: “The atmospheric conditions associated with the unprecedented drought currently afflicting California are “very likely” linked to human-caused climate change.” The California drought is important news because it’s (yet another) glimpse of things to come in a hotter, drier American West. And it’s an indicator of how an intensely concentrated agriculture sector is susceptible to climate shocks.

Currently California produces 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach and 69 percent of carrots, as Slate reports here. In a world beset by an unstable climate, perhaps this isn’t the smartest idea. We need to rethink our strategy of putting all of our eggs—or, as the case may be, almonds—in one basket.

9. California Bans Plastic Bags

OK, maybe this one is parochial—but for good reasons. In September, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law making California the first state in the U.S. to ban plastic bags. The new law—which will go into effect in at large supermarkets in 2015 and corner stores in 2016—also puts in place a 10-cents-per-bag surcharge on paper bags or compostable bags offered to customers, creating an even greater incentive for shoppers to bring reusable bags to the store. (Customers buying groceries with food assistance won’t have to pay for the bags.)

Many grocery chains are in favor of the new law. “History was made today, and our environment and economy will be better for it,” Ronald Fong, president of the California Grocers Association, told CNN as the bill was signed. The plastics industry—not so much. Plastic bag makers have launched an effort to get an initiative on the state ballot to overturn the law, meaning this issue is still in flux.

Plastic bags—flimsy, ugly, prone to getting caught in the wind and fueling sophomoric musings—are like the mascot of an economy built on disposability. By banning them, California legislators took an important step toward stemming single-use plastics and made an important statement against wastefulness.

10. Wolves on the Move

Despite the disgusting predator-killing contests, and the continued hysterical fears, and the fact that they’ve been dropped from Endangered Species Act protection in many states, gray wolves continue to increase their range and find new places where they can thrive.

In July, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that the famous wolf known as OR7 had sired three pups in southern Oregon after spending years roaming hundreds of miles looking for a mate. The revelation came just a month after the California Fish and Game Commission voted to add the wolves to the state’s endangered species list, meaning that if any members of OR7’s new pack cross the state line, they will enjoy additional protections.

Then, in November, a single gray wolf was spotted near the North Rim of Grand Canyon, in Arizona. DNA tests of its scat revealed the animal, which is wearing an inactive radio collar, came from the population of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. Meaning the animal had walked some 450 miles down the spine of the continent.

Amazing. Or, I would dare to say, inspiring. The new wolf pack in Oregon and the lone wolf at the Grand Canyon are proof of that wild nature can recover and rebound from past wounds if only we humans will allow it. Hope springs eternal.

The calendar is about to flip over once again, meaning it’s time for the obligatory roundup of the most important environmental stories of the past year.

This list is mostly subjective—my own personal picks, filtered through my own lens. But I did reach out to a several dozen environmental activists and thinkers to tap into the wisdom of the crowd. I asked folks to give me their suggestions not necessarily for the “biggest” news as measured by headlines or page views or likes, but for the most important stories. That is, happenings likely to have an impact on ecosystems, politics, economy and culture beyond 2014.

Not surprisingly, climate change and energy once again dominate the list. But there was also some important news in wildlife conservation and loss, forest protection and politics. Without further ado, here’s my list of the top 10 most important environmentally related stories of 2014.

1. Obama Finally Acts on Power Plant Emissions

President Obama has been a reluctant warrior when it comes to the environment. In his first term he focused on dealing with the biggest financial meltdown and recession in a generation, and then passing his signature health care reform. Now, hamstrung by an oppositional Congress, he’s found that one of the issues on which he can use his executive authority to make real progress is climate change.

In June, Obama’s EPA announced draft rules to slash carbon pollution from power plants, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Once finalized in 2015, the rules are expected to slash power plant emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 (from a 2005 baseline). Fossil fuel interests are attempting to challenge the rules in court, but the administration’s actions rest on solid legal footing. In a landmark case in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that “greenhouse gases fit within the [Clean Air Act’s] capacious definition of an air pollutant.” Here’s how Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune described to me the importance of the rules for a story I wrote for The Daily Beast:

“This is the kind of leadership that we’ve needed for a long time. And the impacts on clear energy will be huge. For the first time we are regulating carbon [dioxide] from arguably the largest source of carbon [dioxide] in the U.S. Unlike every single other pollutant, there has never been any limit on the amount of carbon pollution that can be dumped into the atmosphere. And [now] that will change. And that change is profound—it’s historic.”

2. U.S. and China Agree to Cut Emissions

“But what about China?” That line—usually delivered in the equivalent of a falsetto whine—has long been the fossil fuel industry’s centerpiece complaint about any U.S. actions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In short: U.S. actions don’t matter as long as other major polluters resist making emissions reductions. Here’s a classic bit of concern trolling from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a week after the power plant rules were announced: “The problem is that the climate is a global issue, not just a U.S. one. … To date, China, India and other major emitters have shown no interest in reducing their emissions appreciably.” Well, the chamber lost that talking point (and President Obama chalked up a major diplomatic accomplishment) when, in November, the U.S. and China announced a bi-lateral agreement to tackle climate change. The U.S. promised to cut emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025—a significant boost from Obama’s earlier goals to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020. (Again, these numbers are from a 2005 baseline). For their part, the Chinese pledged that their emissions would peak sometime around 2030, and also that they would generate at least 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by that year.

To be sure, there’s a lot of wiggle room in the non-binding pledge, which merely outlines what the two nations “intend” to do. Still, climate hawks agree that this is a Very Big Deal. Together, China and the U.S. account for about 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emission, so what these giant emitters intend matters. Their joint pledge—however squishy—keeps hope alive that climate negotiators meeting in Paris in December 2015 will be able to craft a global agreement to ratchet down emissions.

3. A Vibrant, Diverse U.S. Climate Movement Emerges

The turnout blew away organizers’ expectations. The constellation of environmental and social justice groups behind the Sept. 21 People’s Climate March in New York City were hoping to enlist at least 100,000 people to participate in their mass mobilization. At least three times as many people turned out for what observers agreed was the largest climate demonstration in history. Let me just say that again: the largest climate demonstration in history.

While the sheer size of the march was clearly important, the diversity of the participants was even more so. There’s a persistent and pernicious assumption among political observers that only white, affluent, college-educated people care about the environment and climate change. The New York demonstration (along with other marches in cities and towns worldwide) revealed what a lie that bit of snark is. Trade unions played a major role in organizing the march, and young people of color from environmental justice organizations led the massive column. In its ethnic, religious, and age diversity, the march looked like New York City. Global leaders couldn’t help but notice. In a speech just a few days later at the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama alluded to the demonstration when he said: “Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call.”

My 2013 list of top environmental stories included the horrific July 2013 oil train explosion in the Quebec town of Lac Megantic that killed 47 people. But it wasn’t until this year that reporters, environmental groups and community organizations caught up to the fact that shipping oil by rail is 1) a growing practice that 2) poses a real threat to public safety and 3) is frightfully under-regulated. The sudden burst of attention was due, in large part, to spate of oil-by-rail accidents in late 2013 and 2014. In November 2013 a train carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude oil from the Bakken fields exploded near Aliceville, Alabama. A month later, a train collision in Casselton, North Dakota spilled 400,000 gallons of petroleum. And then on April 30, 2014, an oil train derailed and caught fire in Lynchburg, Virginia, forcing the evacuation of 300 people. People began waking up to the fact that, as Adam Federman wrote in our Summer issue, “Each day million of gallons of highly combustible oil are moving through major metropolitan areas.”

National newspapers like The New York Times have jumped on the issue, as have environmental groups like Forest Ethics and Earthjustice, which just this month filed a lawsuit to ban the DOT-111 cars that most oil is shipped in. According to a story in Mother Jones, the DOT-111 is like “the Ford Pinto of rail cars.” Federal regulators are belatedly taking action. In July, the US Department of Transportation proposed new rules to govern shipping crude by rail; even Republicans applauded the move. But the issue is far from settled. With the U.S. shale oil boom continuing and pipelines stretched to capacity, oil-by-rail will continue to be a hot topic in 2015.

5. Election #Fail

In Case You Missed It, there was a big election this year. Going into November, environmentalists were cautiously optimistic that big spending byTom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action PAC and the League of Conservation Voters could help make climate change a wedge issue in several key contests. And so tens millions of dollars were spent in Florida, Maine, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa to elect climate champions and/or defeat climate deniers. Unfortunately, things didn’t quite go according to plan.Environmentalists came up with a 2-4 record in the major races in which they picked a fight and spent heavily. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, will now chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Ouch.

But all is not lost. The massive investments made to organize Millennial voters, especially, may pay off in the long run—or as early as 2016. The spending in 2014 might soften the ground for electoral contests to come. On the eve of the election, NextGen released a voter survey showing that younger voters overwhelmingly acknowledge that climate change is real, are dismissive of climate science deniers, and want to see federal action to stem greenhouse gas emissions. As veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said in a conference call explaining the poll results: “This issue matters for Millennials. It is defining issue, and leaders that deny or decline to act will pay a serious price for this politically.”

There were a few bright spots. Foremost among them, the vote by residents of Denton, Texas to ban fracking within the city limits. That’s right—Texas, the birthplace of hydraulic fracturing. According to environmental advocates, the vote in Denton shows that once people get to see fracking close and personal, they don’t much like it, and want to see the practice stopped. The oil and gas industry has filed a lawsuit to overturn the citizens’ vote; Big Green groups are rallying to Denton’s defense. Keep an eye on this one in 2015.

Though not election related, in another surprise win for environmentalists, on Dec. 17 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a statewide ban on fracking following a two-year review that raised “red flags” about its risks to public health. The move is being seen as a major setback for the oil and gas industry.

6. Cargill Promises to Stop Contributing to Deforestation

Probably the most concrete progress to come out of the September UN Climate Summit was the New York Declaration on Forests, a pledge by multinational companies such as Asia Pulp and Paper and Unilever to cut worldwide deforestation in half by 2020 and to eliminate it completely by 2030. One of the signatories was Cargill, the privately held agri-business giant. As CEO Dave MacLennan said at the UN: “We understand that this sort of commitment cannot be limited to just select commodities or supply chains. That’s why Cargill will take practical measures to protect forests across our agricultural supply chains around the world.”

In a word, this is HUGE. From the pantanal of Brazil—where forests are razed for soy plantations and cattle ranches—to the ancient peat forests of Borneo—where trees are cut down to make plant massive palm monocrops—agriculture is the biggest driver of deforestation worldwide. We are humans are, quite literally, eating up wild nature.

Of course, it’s one thing to make a pledge; it’s another thing to keep it. Environmental groups and other public interest watchdogs will have to stay on top of national governments and mega-corporations to ensure they keep their promises. Here’s hoping they do.

7. Wildlife Continues to Decline

It was probably the most depressing single bit of news of the year: In September, the World Wildlife Fund released a report concluding that in the 40 years between 1970 and 2010, the populations of birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by 52 percent. “There is a lot of data in this report and it can seem very overwhelming and complex,” Jon Hoekstra, chief scientist at WWF, said in a statement releasing the findings. “What’s not complicated are the clear trends we’re seeing—39 percent of terrestrial wildlife gone, 39 percent of marine wildlife gone, 76 percent of freshwater wildlife gone—in the past 40 years.”

It’s no coincidence that even as wildlife populations have been cut in half, human numbers have nearly doubled; in 1970 there were 3.7 billion people on Earth, while today there are more than 7.2 billion. If you put those two trends on a graph, you get something resembling the muzzle of a blunderbuss—the prototype of the rifle. And blowing away the rest of nature is exactly what we’re doing.

The dire figures are a reminder that climate change isn’t the only threat to the planet’s health. Our sheer numbers and our relentless appetites are also chewing up the space for other critters, in the process diminishing the wonder and the beauty of Earth.

This isn’t a parochial inclusion just because I happen to live in California. The drought in California—now in its fourth year, and not even close to being resolved by some recent rains—is big news since the Golden State growsnearly half of the U.S.’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and is also the number one dairy state. What happens to California agriculture affects the whole country.

Make no mistake, the drought is climate-related. Or, in the words of scientists at Stanford: “The atmospheric conditions associated with the unprecedented drought currently afflicting California are “very likely” linked to human-caused climate change.” The California drought is important news because it’s (yet another) glimpse of things to come in a hotter, drier American West. And it’s an indicator of how an intensely concentrated agriculture sector is susceptible to climate shocks.

Currently California produces 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach and 69 percent of carrots, as Slate reports here. In a world beset by an unstable climate, perhaps this isn’t the smartest idea. We need to rethink our strategy of putting all of our eggs—or, as the case may be, almonds—in one basket.

9. California Bans Plastic Bags

OK, maybe this one is parochial—but for good reasons. In September, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law making California the first state in the U.S. to ban plastic bags. The new law—which will go into effect in at large supermarkets in 2015 and corner stores in 2016—also puts in place a 10-cents-per-bag surcharge on paper bags or compostable bags offered to customers, creating an even greater incentive for shoppers to bring reusable bags to the store. (Customers buying groceries with food assistance won’t have to pay for the bags.)

Many grocery chains are in favor of the new law. “History was made today, and our environment and economy will be better for it,” Ronald Fong, president of the California Grocers Association, told CNN as the bill was signed. The plastics industry—not so much. Plastic bag makers have launched an effort to get an initiative on the state ballot to overturn the law, meaning this issue is still in flux.

Plastic bags—flimsy, ugly, prone to getting caught in the wind and fueling sophomoric musings—are like the mascot of an economy built on disposability. By banning them, California legislators took an important step toward stemming single-use plastics and made an important statement against wastefulness.

10. Wolves on the Move

Despite the disgusting predator-killing contests, and the continued hysterical fears, and the fact that they’ve been dropped from Endangered Species Act protection in many states, gray wolves continue to increase their range and find new places where they can thrive.

In July, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that the famous wolf known as OR7 had sired three pups in southern Oregon after spending years roaming hundreds of miles looking for a mate. The revelation came just a month after the California Fish and Game Commission voted to add the wolves to the state’s endangered species list, meaning that if any members of OR7’s new pack cross the state line, they will enjoy additional protections.

Then, in November, a single gray wolf was spotted near the North Rim of Grand Canyon, in Arizona. DNA tests of its scat revealed the animal, which is wearing an inactive radio collar, came from the population of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. Meaning the animal had walked some 450 miles down the spine of the continent.

Amazing. Or, I would dare to say, inspiring. The new wolf pack in Oregon and the lone wolf at the Grand Canyon are proof of that wild nature can recover and rebound from past wounds if only we humans will allow it. Hope springs eternal.

Clues point to relentless protesters, a high-court ruling and a natural gas glut, not Cuomo’s ban.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo may have had little choice but to prohibit fracking in New York, say some activists who worked toward the ban. His decision was made convenient by a state court decision against fracking and rapidly falling natural gas prices. These events combined may have already killed the fracking industry’s interest in the state.

“You could say it was a moot point,” says an environmental and political activist who wished not to be named since he works with Cuomo’s administration on unrelated matters. “I do wonder if there would have been a different message from Cuomo if the State Court of Appeals had not ruled that towns could ban fracking.”

The activist, who worked with anti-fracking organizations since 2009, said the Cuomo administration hinted it would decide the other way, including fudging the results of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, commissioned by the state to assess the impact of fracking on well water.

In October, Capital New York reported that officials delayed the report and edited some of conclusions so they wouldn't be politically inconvenient if Cuomo decided to lift the moratorium and allow the controversial energy extraction practice. Capital New York found disparities between the original draft and the final version that came after extensive communication between the Cuomo administration and USGS. It said that the differences reveal that “some of the authors’ original environmental and health risks associated with fracking were played down or removed.”

Last week, Cuomo met with his top advisers and representatives of the media. There, he deferred his decision on fracking to the findings of Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Joseph Martens and acting state health commissioner Howard Zucker.

The activist said, “A lot of people are thanking Cuomo, Martens and Zucker, but the wheels were already set in motion. It wasn’t Cuomo who stopped fracking, it was the activists and the communities. It’s because the people stood up, and they organized and then they won a big victory in court.”

Zucker and Martens summarized the findings of their respective reviews and concluded that fracking carried unacceptable risks that have not been sufficiently studied. Zucker went as far as saying he would not let his family live near a fracking site. Martens will release an environmental impact statement on fracking next year, followed by an order to prohibit fracking operations in the state.

Soon after the decision, Bill Lipton, director of the state’s Working Families Party, one of the groups behind the New Yorkers Against Fracking Coalition, said, "New York is worth more than the gas under our feet. Six years ago, the gas drillers told us hydrofracking was an inevitability. We believed in a better future for our state. Every New Yorker who spoke up, called their lawmakers, boarded a bus to Albany, signed a petition or put a sign in their yard deserves enormous credit."

Gasland filmmaker Josh Fox praises the wisdom of activists relying on health and environmental research in the battle. He also said activism inspired more scientific studies.“If it was not for our movement there would not have been any science on the subject,” said Fox in a letter to activists. “In 2008, there was very little science on fracking at all.”

But Albany Project blogger Phillip Anderson says that activists had more than just science on their side; deciding to fight the battle on the local level ended up being their best strategy.

"And then those local anti-fracking organizers began doing something brilliant, something that, in the end, may have been the single most important tactical move in the whole war, though I doubt very few people realized its significance at the time. They began pressuring their local city governments to ban fracking within their city limits using zoning laws or passing new ones if necessary. And they began to win those fights. Cities, towns and villages began using local laws to ban fracking locally."

Meanwhile, activists were growing in number and they began to hound Gov. Cuomo relentlessly at appearances. It didn't matter the town or the subject of the speech he was giving, fracking was an issue the governor had to contend with whenever he met with the public. As Anderson, a former State Senate staffer says, "It was obvious that they were annoying the hell out of him and he let slip more than once that he basically hated their guts."

Cuomo also found that his hesitance on fracking was hurting him with Democratic voters upstate. His upstart primary opponent, Zephyr Teachout, made a fracking ban one of her campaign's core issues. And while Teachout won only 34% of the vote against Cuomo, she won nearly two dozen counties upstate, where fracking is a hotbutton issue.

Did NY Courts Deal the Fatal Blow?

In June, New York’s highest court issued a 5-2 decision upholding the legal theory called "municipal home rule" that supported scores of municipal bans on oil and gas production in the state. The case, Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden, centered on zoning restrictions put in place by towns of Dryden and Middlefield to stop fracking within their town boundaries. The two upstate towns were sued by large energy corporations that insisted they had a right to frack within their jurisdictions despite zoning laws that prohibited some of the practices involved in hydrofracking.​

The plaintiffs, notably the multibillion-dollar Anchutz Exploration Corporation, insisted that state regulations on energy extraction superseded any town zoning regulations that would either limit or effectively ban an industry from operating there.​ But the court backed the towns, and the opinion was even written by Judge Victoria A. Graffeo, a conservative who was appointed by George Pataki, New York's former Republican governor.

“At the heart of these cases,” wrote Graffeo in her opinion, “lies the relationship between the State and its local government subdivisions, and their respective exercise of legislative power. These appeals are not about whether hydrofracking is beneficial or detrimental to the economy, environment or energy needs of New York, and we pass no judgment on its merits.”​

As as result of the landmark ruling, 170 pending municipal restrictions against fracking related practices became law, making only unincorporated areas of the state vulnerable to the practice. Martens, in his presentation on the fracking issue last Wednesday, said the Dryden/Middlefield ruling made fracking impossible in at least 63% of the state, along with the DEC’s bans on fracking in the Syracuse Watershed and near the New York City water system, which are unfiltered water supplies. Martens also said a hodgepodge of municipal laws could confuse and bog down companies hoping to establish wells in the state.

"The uncertainty about whether [fracking] is an authorized use would undoubtedly result in additional litigation," Martens said. "It would also result in a patchwork of local land use rules, which industry has claimed would utterly frustrate the rational development of the shale resource."

"In the end, all those local bans played a huge part in making fracking far less attractive financially and the head of the DEC made it a point to mention that fact repeatedly," said Anderson.

Dryden Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner, who oversaw the banning of fracking in her town, told the Associated Press she’s thrilled to find that her town’s decision was considered by Cuomo’s commissioners in their decision-making process. "This is the best possible outcome of the governor's decision-making process; this is more than I had hoped for," Sumner told the AP. "It's really thrilling to realize that a grassroots effort really can make a difference.”

Immediately after the Dryden decision, it looked like the energy extraction industry had written off New York, throwing up its hands in disgust at the Court ruling, and saying it may not be inclined to do business in the state.

Thomas S. West, a lawyer for Norse Energy in its suit against Dryden said that, “the industry has already fled the state because of the six-year moratorium” and that the industry couldn’t work in a climate where it would invest “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars required to develop the resource, only to be at risk of a municipal ban.”

A Self-Inflicted Wound

Fracking may also be less viable and more financially risky than analysts once believed. A recent study by economists and engineers at the Bureau of Economic Geology found that with falling prices, some 70% of natural gas plays in the Barnett and Fayetteville shale reservoirs in Texas and Arkansas were likely to become commercial failures. The interdisciplinary team came to this conclusion a year ago when natural gas was near $4 per MMBtu. Today the price is at $3 MMBtu, a fall as precipitous as the one oil is experiencing. This is in part to unseasonably warm weather in much of the U.S., but also because there is a glut of natural gas on the market, of which fracking plays a big part.

Energy researchers also say the estimated returns on shale gas plays have been wildly optimistic and that many fields are consistently underperforming. Researchers from the University of Texas/Austin said in the December issue of the journal Nature that natural gas production from major shale formations have been overstated in the past.

Fracking technology has brought so much natural gas onto the market that the price can't support the expense of shale gas drilling, which produces marginal profits even when the price of gas is high. So fracking, which is expensive and energy-intensive, may be its own worst enemy by contributing to lowering prices to the point where it might not be profitable to frack.

While the fracking industry may have given up on New York, Republican lawmakers haven't. Calling Cuomo’s ban purely political and crying foul. One member of Congress from the state’s energy-rich Southern Tier is even vowing to overturn the state’s ban on a federal level.

Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of Congress who represents much of the areas west of the Catskill Mountains and along the northern border of Pennsylvania, says he’s looking into the possibility of having the federal government supersede New York's fracking ban. Reed told political reporter Fred Dicker that the feds already have the authority to overrule the ban, much in the same way federal telecommunications measures override municipal zoning laws regarding the placement of satellite dishes.

“So the federal government could have a role here,” Reed told Dicker on Albany’s Talk 1300 radio. “Obviously when we talk about energy, we’re talking about our energy security and that has national implications.”

Clues point to relentless protesters, a high-court ruling and a natural gas glut, not Cuomo’s ban.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo may have had little choice but to prohibit fracking in New York, say some activists who worked toward the ban. His decision was made convenient by a state court decision against fracking and rapidly falling natural gas prices. These events combined may have already killed the fracking industry’s interest in the state.

“You could say it was a moot point,” says an environmental and political activist who wished not to be named since he works with Cuomo’s administration on unrelated matters. “I do wonder if there would have been a different message from Cuomo if the State Court of Appeals had not ruled that towns could ban fracking.”

The activist, who worked with anti-fracking organizations since 2009, said the Cuomo administration hinted it would decide the other way, including fudging the results of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, commissioned by the state to assess the impact of fracking on well water.

In October, Capital New York reported that officials delayed the report and edited some of conclusions so they wouldn't be politically inconvenient if Cuomo decided to lift the moratorium and allow the controversial energy extraction practice. Capital New York found disparities between the original draft and the final version that came after extensive communication between the Cuomo administration and USGS. It said that the differences reveal that “some of the authors’ original environmental and health risks associated with fracking were played down or removed.”

Last week, Cuomo met with his top advisers and representatives of the media. There, he deferred his decision on fracking to the findings of Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Joseph Martens and acting state health commissioner Howard Zucker.

The activist said, “A lot of people are thanking Cuomo, Martens and Zucker, but the wheels were already set in motion. It wasn’t Cuomo who stopped fracking, it was the activists and the communities. It’s because the people stood up, and they organized and then they won a big victory in court.”

Zucker and Martens summarized the findings of their respective reviews and concluded that fracking carried unacceptable risks that have not been sufficiently studied. Zucker went as far as saying he would not let his family live near a fracking site. Martens will release an environmental impact statement on fracking next year, followed by an order to prohibit fracking operations in the state.

Soon after the decision, Bill Lipton, director of the state’s Working Families Party, one of the groups behind the New Yorkers Against Fracking Coalition, said, "New York is worth more than the gas under our feet. Six years ago, the gas drillers told us hydrofracking was an inevitability. We believed in a better future for our state. Every New Yorker who spoke up, called their lawmakers, boarded a bus to Albany, signed a petition or put a sign in their yard deserves enormous credit."

Gasland filmmaker Josh Fox praises the wisdom of activists relying on health and environmental research in the battle. He also said activism inspired more scientific studies.“If it was not for our movement there would not have been any science on the subject,” said Fox in a letter to activists. “In 2008, there was very little science on fracking at all.”

But Albany Project blogger Phillip Anderson says that activists had more than just science on their side; deciding to fight the battle on the local level ended up being their best strategy.

"And then those local anti-fracking organizers began doing something brilliant, something that, in the end, may have been the single most important tactical move in the whole war, though I doubt very few people realized its significance at the time. They began pressuring their local city governments to ban fracking within their city limits using zoning laws or passing new ones if necessary. And they began to win those fights. Cities, towns and villages began using local laws to ban fracking locally."

Meanwhile, activists were growing in number and they began to hound Gov. Cuomo relentlessly at appearances. It didn't matter the town or the subject of the speech he was giving, fracking was an issue the governor had to contend with whenever he met with the public. As Anderson, a former State Senate staffer says, "It was obvious that they were annoying the hell out of him and he let slip more than once that he basically hated their guts."

Cuomo also found that his hesitance on fracking was hurting him with Democratic voters upstate. His upstart primary opponent, Zephyr Teachout, made a fracking ban one of her campaign's core issues. And while Teachout won only 34% of the vote against Cuomo, she won nearly two dozen counties upstate, where fracking is a hotbutton issue.

Did NY Courts Deal the Fatal Blow?

In June, New York’s highest court issued a 5-2 decision upholding the legal theory called "municipal home rule" that supported scores of municipal bans on oil and gas production in the state. The case, Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden, centered on zoning restrictions put in place by towns of Dryden and Middlefield to stop fracking within their town boundaries. The two upstate towns were sued by large energy corporations that insisted they had a right to frack within their jurisdictions despite zoning laws that prohibited some of the practices involved in hydrofracking.​

The plaintiffs, notably the multibillion-dollar Anchutz Exploration Corporation, insisted that state regulations on energy extraction superseded any town zoning regulations that would either limit or effectively ban an industry from operating there.​ But the court backed the towns, and the opinion was even written by Judge Victoria A. Graffeo, a conservative who was appointed by George Pataki, New York's former Republican governor.

“At the heart of these cases,” wrote Graffeo in her opinion, “lies the relationship between the State and its local government subdivisions, and their respective exercise of legislative power. These appeals are not about whether hydrofracking is beneficial or detrimental to the economy, environment or energy needs of New York, and we pass no judgment on its merits.”​

As as result of the landmark ruling, 170 pending municipal restrictions against fracking related practices became law, making only unincorporated areas of the state vulnerable to the practice. Martens, in his presentation on the fracking issue last Wednesday, said the Dryden/Middlefield ruling made fracking impossible in at least 63% of the state, along with the DEC’s bans on fracking in the Syracuse Watershed and near the New York City water system, which are unfiltered water supplies. Martens also said a hodgepodge of municipal laws could confuse and bog down companies hoping to establish wells in the state.

"The uncertainty about whether [fracking] is an authorized use would undoubtedly result in additional litigation," Martens said. "It would also result in a patchwork of local land use rules, which industry has claimed would utterly frustrate the rational development of the shale resource."

"In the end, all those local bans played a huge part in making fracking far less attractive financially and the head of the DEC made it a point to mention that fact repeatedly," said Anderson.

Dryden Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner, who oversaw the banning of fracking in her town, told the Associated Press she’s thrilled to find that her town’s decision was considered by Cuomo’s commissioners in their decision-making process. "This is the best possible outcome of the governor's decision-making process; this is more than I had hoped for," Sumner told the AP. "It's really thrilling to realize that a grassroots effort really can make a difference.”

Immediately after the Dryden decision, it looked like the energy extraction industry had written off New York, throwing up its hands in disgust at the Court ruling, and saying it may not be inclined to do business in the state.

Thomas S. West, a lawyer for Norse Energy in its suit against Dryden said that, “the industry has already fled the state because of the six-year moratorium” and that the industry couldn’t work in a climate where it would invest “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars required to develop the resource, only to be at risk of a municipal ban.”

A Self-Inflicted Wound

Fracking may also be less viable and more financially risky than analysts once believed. A recent study by economists and engineers at the Bureau of Economic Geology found that with falling prices, some 70% of natural gas plays in the Barnett and Fayetteville shale reservoirs in Texas and Arkansas were likely to become commercial failures. The interdisciplinary team came to this conclusion a year ago when natural gas was near $4 per MMBtu. Today the price is at $3 MMBtu, a fall as precipitous as the one oil is experiencing. This is in part to unseasonably warm weather in much of the U.S., but also because there is a glut of natural gas on the market, of which fracking plays a big part.

Energy researchers also say the estimated returns on shale gas plays have been wildly optimistic and that many fields are consistently underperforming. Researchers from the University of Texas/Austin said in the December issue of the journal Nature that natural gas production from major shale formations have been overstated in the past.

Fracking technology has brought so much natural gas onto the market that the price can't support the expense of shale gas drilling, which produces marginal profits even when the price of gas is high. So fracking, which is expensive and energy-intensive, may be its own worst enemy by contributing to lowering prices to the point where it might not be profitable to frack.

While the fracking industry may have given up on New York, Republican lawmakers haven't. Calling Cuomo’s ban purely political and crying foul. One member of Congress from the state’s energy-rich Southern Tier is even vowing to overturn the state’s ban on a federal level.

Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of Congress who represents much of the areas west of the Catskill Mountains and along the northern border of Pennsylvania, says he’s looking into the possibility of having the federal government supersede New York's fracking ban. Reed told political reporter Fred Dicker that the feds already have the authority to overrule the ban, much in the same way federal telecommunications measures override municipal zoning laws regarding the placement of satellite dishes.

“So the federal government could have a role here,” Reed told Dicker on Albany’s Talk 1300 radio. “Obviously when we talk about energy, we’re talking about our energy security and that has national implications.”